Who is Gary Ridgway?

Gary Ridgway is a serial killer who is also known by his moniker ‘The Green River Killer’; Gary Ridgway was a resident in the State of Washington, within which the Green River resides. Gary Ridgway was given his moniker as a result of the discovery of 5 corpses – considered to be victims of Ridgway’s murderous spree – in the Green River. Gary Ridgway’s killing spree is reported as lasting over a decade, taking place within the 1980s and 1990s. Primarily, Gary Ridgway was reported as strangling his victims and disposing of the bodies.

Gary Ridgway Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Gary Ridgway

Date of Birth: Gary Ridgway was born on February 18th, 1949 in Salt Lake City, Utah

Residence: During the time of his killings, Gary Ridgway resided in Kings County in the State of Washington

Year of First Killing: Gary Ridgway’s first murder is reported as involving a 16 year old female victim named Wendy Cofield; she was reported as being strangled. Although no definitive date of her murder was determined, she was reported as missing on July 8th, 1982; he body was discovered on July 15th, 1982.

Year of Apprehension: Gary Ridgway worked at the Kenworth Truck Factory in Renton, Washington; subsequent to his monitoring by law enforcement agents, he was apprehended on November 30th, 2001.

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Gary Ridgway; in addition, these case details were made mention within Gary Ridgway’s criminal trial:

Gary Ridgway was reported as possessing an IQ of 82, which he claimed contributed to difficulties in his schooling; he is reported to not have graduated high school

In his confessions, Gary Ridgway claimed to have been emotionally abused by his mother; he considered his home life and upbringing as extremely destructive and volatile

Gary Ridgway is reported as confessing to more murders that any other serial killer in the history of the United States

Locations of the Murders: Gary Ridgway’s murderous spree took place in both the States of Washington and Oregon

Victims:  Gary Ridgway was charged for the murder of 48 individuals; however, he has been linked to as many as 71 murders – many of the bodies of his victims have never been found

Status as a Serial Killer: Gary Ridgway is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Gary Ridgway was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month; this is conjunction to taking a break or ‘rest’ in the interim of his killings and continuing to commit murders

Nature of Victims: Gary Ridgway’s victims were female who were reported as ranging in age from 15 to 31; many of his victims were reported as impoverished runaways or prostitutes

Punishment and Conviction: On November 5th, 2003, Gary Ridgway was convicted of 48 murders; although Gary Ridgway was convicted of 48 murders, he had confessed to upwards of 71 murders. In an attempt to avoid the death penalty, the District Attorney of the State of Washington spared Gary Ridgway of the death penalty in lieu of a full confession. The terms of his punishment did not include the death penalty, but Gary Ridgway was sentenced to life incarceration without the opportunity for parole.

What is a Murder Trial?

Murder Trials are legal proceedings in which the alleged activity involving the murder of one individual at the hands of another individual – or individuals – undergoes judicial review. Within the realm of a murder trial, the classification of murder must present that the suspect partook in the homicide of another individual in an intentional, premeditated, and purposeful fashion; murder trials finding that the suspect acted with the intent to kill may vary with their respective classification of the murder:

Who is Jack Abramoff?

Jack Abramoff is an individual considered to be both an entrepreneur and lobbyist who undertook relations with a wide variety of Congressmen in the United States, such as Bob Ney, J. Steven Griles, and David Safavian; furthermore, Jack Abramoff retained his seat as the Chairman for the College Republican National Committee in the early 1980s. Jack Abramoff’s political ties are presumed to be responsible for his criminal activity, which involved a multitude of political-based corruption and fraud. Although Jack Abramoff was accused of a variety of fraudulent criminal activity, perhaps the most prominent was both his participation and masterminding of fraudulent conspiracy involving the misappropriation of over $85 million in illicit earnings with regard to Native American Gaming Institutions and Casinos:

Jack Abramoff, who acted as a lobbyist for the Native American Gaming Industry, participated in the receipt of illicit and unethical donations and bribes with regard to serving as a proponent for the inception of gaming facilities

Jack Abramoff also enacted a scheme in which millions of dollars were usurped from interest-based earnings rendered from the Native American Gaming Institutions for which he had purportedly served as a lobbyist

The Case Profile of Jack Abramoff

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Jack Abramoff, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: Jack Abramoff was born on February 28th, 1958

Date of the Crime: Jack Abramoff’s many crimes – including lobbyist scandals involving Native American Gaming Institutions and Guam – took place between the 1980s and 2002 upon his apprehension

Criminal Charges: Jack Abramoff was found guilty of the following Financial Fraud:

Conspiracy; the involvement and participation of two or more individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to commit a crime; an individual charged with conspiracy does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to be found guilty

Money Laundering; the deceptive presentation of a source of income in order to conceal its origin

Legal Classification: The domain of both Financial Law and Administrative Law:

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Administrative Law; the legal field in which the interactions between the Federal Government and its citizens are regulated and subject to judicial review and oversight

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Date of the Trial: March of 2006

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Jack Abramoff; in addition, these case details were made mention within Jack Abramoff’s criminal trial:

In addition to Jack Abramoff, a variety of accomplices were indicted with regard to their participation

Jack Abramoff was convicted of Tax Fraud, which is a type of fraud conducted by Jack Abramoff in which illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent activity was undertaken in order to avoid the payment of taxes

Verdict Delivered: Jack Abramoff was found guilty on November 15th, 2006

Punishment and Conviction: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in a minimum security prison camp in Cumberland Maryland; he was released from prison on December 10th, 2010

The Background of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

J.M. Near, a Minnesota resident who undertook the publishing of his newspaper ‘The Saturday Press’ was arrested as a result of the content of his publication, which was presumed to be comprised of racist, prejudiced, and objectionable hate-speech; as a result, he was arrested in accordance with his violation of The Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which was an ordinance passed prohibiting media considered to serve as potential to cause public disturbance and civil disorder; this classification resulted from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota – however, Near dismissed charges that his publication contained any intent of criminal behavior.

The classification of public censorship with regard to necessary or unnecessary censorship exists in tandem with the notion of the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs both in accordance to locale and content

Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm

The Case Profile of Near v. Minnesota

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Near v. Minnesota’:

Date of the Trial: January 30th, 1930

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by J. M. Near – the owner and operator of the publication titled ‘The Saturday Press’ against the State of Minnesota within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

J. M. Near cited that the State of California had violated both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature

As a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression. explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts

United States Reports Case Number: 283 U.S. 697

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 1st, 1931

Legal Venue of Near v. Minnesota: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Near v. Minnesota case:

J. M. Near; Plaintiff – Near v. Minnesota

The State of Minnesota: Defendant – Near v. Minnesota

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, stating that the Minnesota Gag Law was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Near’s sentiments expressed within his publication were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.

Associated Legislation with regard to Near v. Minnesota: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Near v. Minnesota trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘New Jersey v. TLO’:

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the New Jersey v. TLO case:

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Perry v. Schwarzenegger’:

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case:

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Korematsu v. United States (1944)

During World War II, President Roosevelt passed Presidential Executive Order 9066, which mandated the placement of Japanese residents and citizens within the United States into specialized facilities in which they were excluded from the general populace. Although, in a time of peace, this Presidential order would have been perceived as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, Roosevelt explained that the order was instated in order to prevent any type of internal sabotage or damage caused by prospective measures of Japanese sympathy – this was in conjunction to the fact that Japan was considered to be an enemy of the United States during World War II:

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Korematsu – the substantiation of martial law during a time of war within the United States

The Case Profile of Korematsu v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Korematsu v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: December 18th, 1944

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Fred Korematsu against the United States of America within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Korematsu cited that the forced residence into excluded camps and facilities was a direct violation of human rights and civil liberties afforded to American Citizens as was expressed within the 14th Amendment

United States Reports Case Number: 323 U.S. 214

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 18th, 1944

Legal Venue of Korematsu v. United States: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Korematsu v. United States case:

Fred Korematstu; Plaintiff – Korematsu v. United States

The United States of America; Defendant – Korematsu v. United States

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States of America, explaining that in accordance with Military Law, the protection and preservation of the safety and wellbeing of the general citizenship of the United States outweighed individual – and personal freedoms. The ruling included the explanation that the existence of war allowed for extenuating circumstances with regard to the translation of the Constitution

Associated Legislation with regard to Korematsu v. United States: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Korematsu v. United States trial:

The 5th Amendment states that subsequent to apprehension, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Background of Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

On September 17th, 1998, two men – John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner – were arrested in the area of Houston, Texas subsequent to the discovery of law enforcement agents that the two men had been engaged in consensual anal sex; an act that was considered to be illegal within the Texas Penal Code under a statute entitled ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’ – this prohibited sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex. Law enforcement agents arrived to the home of John Lawrence after a neighbor had issued a fallacious complain that an individual within the Lawrence residence was wielding a weapon; upon arrival, the law enforcement agents were made aware that the two men were engaging in sexual activity – they were subsequently arrested

The Case Profile of Lawrence v. Texas

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Lawrence v. Texas’:

Date of the Trial: March 26th, 2003

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner against the State of Texas within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

While the nature of the search and seizure of the two individuals was never made mention within the subsequent case of Lawrence v. Texas, both Lawrence and Gardner maintained that the Homosexual Conduct Laws were direct violations of both men’s 14th Amendment Rights

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 558

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 26th, 2003

Legal Venue of Lawrence v. Texas: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Lawrence v. Texas case:

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner; Plaintiff(s) – Lawrence v. Texas

The State of Texas; Defendant – Lawrence v. Texas

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘Homosexual Conduct Laws’ were indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment with regard to the provision of equality within statutory legislation regardless of race, gender, creed, ethnicity, and sexual orientation

Associated Legislation with regard to Lawrence v. Texas: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Lawrence v. Texas trial:

The expressed restriction stated within Chapter 21, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code states that any nature of oral or anal sexual intercourse undertaken between two individuals of the same sex is considered to be illegal; this was also referred to as the ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm Contact Texas lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

The Background of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Lemon v. Kurtzman was a legal hearing taking place within the State of Pennsylvania appealing for the repeal of a State statute allowing for supplemental compensation afforded from the State budget to be disbursed to instructors and educational programs undertaking the provision of religious-based studies, lessons, and activities; this was stated within the Non-public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. Lemon, a Pennsylvania instructor cited a violation of the Establishment Clause stated within the United States Constitution with regard to this practice:

The Establishment Clause within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution strictly prohibits the establishment of any supplemental legislation or statutory law that joins the interests of religious bodies with interests of the general population

Also known as the ‘Separation of Church and State’ – the government is prohibited from placing the interest of any institution or agency over those of the general populace of citizens

The Case Profile of Lemon v. Kurtzman

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Lemon v. Kurtzman’:

Date of the Trial: March 3rd, 1971

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Alton J. Lemon against David H. Kurtzman – acting as the Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction in the State of Pennsylvania within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Lemon maintained that the preferential treatment of items and services considered to be rooted in religion was a direct violation of the requirement to separate church and State; an argument was set forth explaining that the Constitution prohibited specific religions from expressly benefiting from statutory legislation

United States Reports Case Number: 403 U.S. 602

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 1971

Legal Venue of Lemon v. Kurtzman: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case:

Alton J. Lemon; Plaintiff – Lemon v. Kurtzman

David H. Kurtzman; Defendant – Lemon v. Kurtzman

Verdict Delivered: The passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes the autonomy and agency of an individual with regard to religious belief; this includes the prohibition of the enforcement of religious viewpoints considered to infringe on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assembly, the freedom of the press, or the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances. This verdict also led to the creation of the Lemon Test, which is a classification system employed with regard to statutes and laws pertaining to religion in public facilities and institutions:

The Lemon Test serves to avoid specific actions expressly allowing religions to benefit from legal statutes

The Lemon Test ensures that secular interest takes priority within public setting s and institutions

The Lemon Test creates methodology disallowing the government to become overtly – and overly – involved within religious institution and ideology

Associated Legislation with regard to Lemon v. Kurtzman: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Lemon v. Kurtzman trial:

With regard to the freedom of expression, the 1st Amendment this statute reinforces the expressed ‘freedom of assembly’, which allows individuals the autonomy and agency to make personal decisions in accordance to legality and legislation

The Background of  Lochner v. New York (1905)

Lochner v. New York is considered to be amongst the most landmark court cases occurring within the history of the United States, and arguably one of the most prominent with regard to labor laws enacted within the United States. Joseph Lochner, a baker in the city of Utica, New York, argued against the statutes imposed by New York legislature with regard to the hours permissible for bakeries to operate; this was in response to the Bakeshop Act passed in 1895, which prohibited bakeries to operate for an excess of 60 hours during a single week. Joseph Lochner contended that if both he and his staff willfully desired to work more than 60 hours, they should be permitted to do so in accordance with the tenets expressed within the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

The time period in which Lochner v. New York took place is sometimes referred to as the ‘Lochner Era’ due to the fact that a multitude of labor legislation was argued

The Case Profile of Lochner v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Lochner v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: February 23rd, 1905

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Joseph Lochner against the State of New York

Joseph Lochner contended that the statutes expressed within the Bakeshop Act of 1895 were unconstitutional and a direct violation of his civil liberties of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 198 U.S. 45

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 17th, 1905

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Melvin Fuller

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Lochner v. New York case:

Joseph Lochner was the plaintiff in Lochner v. New York

The State of New York was the defendant in Lochner v. New York

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court found the Bakeshop Act to be in violation of the Constitution and mandated that the State of New York was unable to enforce labor stipulations with regard to operations not performed under duress or threat; furthermore, the Supreme Court had ruled that a State was unable to regulate legal employment

Associated Legislation with regard to Lochner v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Lochner v. New York trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age