Famous Trials

Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of EducationWhat is Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?

Brown v. Board of Education is considered to be a landmark Supreme Court case contributory the eventual cessation of segregation imposed between African American and Caucasian citizens of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education addressed a circumstance that had taken place within the State of Kansas in the city of Topeka; Linda Brown, who was a third grade student, had been forced to attend a segregated school – the African American students in this school were forbidden from attending school with Caucasian students:

The Case Profile of Brown v. Board of Education

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Brown v. Board of Education’:

Date of the Trial: 1954

Legal Classification: Civil Law; Civil Law is a legal field in that typically addresses nonviolent circumstances and events that are perceived as presumable wrongs suffered – Civil Law  cases this judicial review within Civil Law is typically reliant upon legal statutes in lieu of past court cases, decisions, or preexisting findings

United States Reports Case Number: 347 U.S. 483

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: May 17th, 1954

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Brown v. Board of Education case:

Oliver Brown – named as both the plaintiff, as well as the father of Linda Brown – contended that the separation and segregation taking place within public American educational systems were a direct violation of equal rights afforded to every citizen of the United States

The Board of Education of the State of Kansas was named as the defendant; this Board of Education was cited as violating the Constitution upon enacting segregation within the public educational system

Verdict Delivered: The entirety of Supreme Court Justices delivered a verdict in favor of Oliver Brown; subsequent to this decision, segregation in the United States was overturned and forbidden

Associated Legislation with regard to Brown v. Board of Education: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Brown v. Board of Education trial:

Brown v. Board of Education cited the Louisiana Railway Car Act as a reference to the notion of separate but equal being unconstitutional; Oliver Brown maintained that the segregation of educational systems was an implicit denial of equal rights

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution required that all citizens of the United States be granted equal protection and equal rights; Brown contended that segregation was in direct violation of this statute

Subsequent Cases Associated with Brown v. Board of Education: The following legal cases and trials made mention and reference to the findings undertaken in Brown v. Board of Education:

Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court case that followed suit with associated court cases involving Civil Rights and Equality, such as Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott Case; however, the verdict delivered in this case was far more favorable than those delivered with regard to similar cases.

Graham v. Florida

Graham v. FloridaThe Background of Graham v. Florida (2009)

Terrance Jamar Graham and several other individuals committed the robbery – and rape during the robbery – when they were below the age of 18; the age at which an individual is regarded as a legal adult. As a result of their respective convictions, Graham was sentenced to be executed by the State of Florida. However, Graham appealed his sentencing citing that due to the fact that the crime committed did not involve murder – in addition to the fact that at the time of the crime, he was classified as a minor – capital punishment could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment:

‘A life sentence without the chance of parole, which is also known as a ‘Natural Life Sentence’, is punitive legal recourse enabling State and Federal Governments to punish an individual with incarceration resulting in their respective – and ultimate – death taking place while incarcerated

Minor Law – involving the classification of a minor –defines that individual as one who is below the age of legal adulthood; typically, minors are prohibited from consenting to sexual activity, purchasing controlled substances, authorizing a legal contract through signature, partaking in the consumption of controlled substances, validating participation in an activity or event that requires the presence of a legal guardian, and representing themselves in a court of law

The Case Profile of Graham v. Florida

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

Date of the Trial: November 9th 2009

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 Terrance Jamar Graham against the State of Florida within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Graham maintained that the execution resulting from a crime not involving murder was a violation of his 8th Amendment Rights, protecting him from cruel and unusual punishment

United States Reports Case Number: 08-7412

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: May 17th, 2010

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

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

Terrance Jamar Graham; Plaintiff – Graham v. Florida

The State of Florida; Defendant – Graham v. Florida

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the sentencing of Graham, sparing him from execution. The ruling was explained that the sentencing of an individual with what results in a ‘Natural Life’ sentence for crimes committed prior to the age of 18 – and not involving murder – is indeed a violation of the 8th Amendment

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

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

Gregg v. Georgia

Gregg v. GeorgiaThe Background of Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Troy Leon Gregg was an individual who was incarcerated within the State of Georgia subsequent to his arrest and conviction of the murder of two individuals in 1973; subsequent to his trial, the jury had found Gregg guilty and had sentenced him to death. Gregg was the first individual in the history of the United States whose respective execution was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States; however, during the evening prior to his execution, Gregg escaped from incarceration and was killed in North Carolina as a result of scuffle in which he was involved:

Capital Punishment, which is also known as the Death Penalty, is the legal process enabling State and Federal Governments to enact executions with regard to convicted criminals for whom the presiding jury has deemed the death penalty to be fair and applicable punishment

The Case Profile of Gregg v. Georgia

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

Date of the Trial: March 30th – 31st, 1976

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 Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Over the course of his incarceration, not only Gregg, but also fellow death row inmates Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, James Tyrone Woodson petitioned that capital punishment was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution

United States Reports Case Number: 428 U.S. 153

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: July 2nd, 1976

Legal Venue of Gregg v. Georgia: 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 Gregg v. Georgia case:

Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson; Plaintiff(s) –

The State of Georgia; Defendant –

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Georgia, stating that the execution of Troy Gregg was Constitutional due to the fact that it was tried, heard and sentenced through the Judicial system; furthermore, the jury who had sentenced him to death were determined to have presumably heard the case details and analyzed them carefully, objectively, and ethically. In addition, the susceptibility of the sentencing to subsequent appeals allows the notion of capital punishment to be ineligible for the classification of cruel or unusual.

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

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process

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

Griswold v. Connecticut

Griswold v. ConnecticutThe Background of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut addressed a Connecticut statute that prohibited the use of any drug, pharmaceutical, or instrument undertaken in order to serve as contraception for pregnancy.  Estelle Griswold, serving as the director of the Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood – an institution that advocates for the responsible undertaking of sexual activity in order to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy – was cited for the violation of the aforementioned Connecticut statute upon distributing and advocating for the use of prophylactics:

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of circumstances of privacy and private domains; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue infringement and violations

The Case Profile of Griswold v. Connecticut

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

Date of the Trial: March 29th, 1965

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 Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton against the State of Connecticut within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Griswold stated that her arrest was a direct violation of her 14th Amendment Rights, allowing her the right to privacy; she claimed that the Connecticut statute infringed upon personal freedoms belonging – and entitled – to American Citizens

United States Reports Case Number: 381 U.S. 479

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 7th, 1965

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

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

Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton; Plaintiff(s) – Griswold v. Connecticut

The State of Connecticut; Defendant – Griswold v. Connecticut

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut statute forbidding the use of prophylactics, stating that the statute was in direct violation of the expressed right to privacy within a private setting. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights, which included the 14th Amendment. As a result, the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power with regard to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

Associated Legislation with regard to Griswold v. Connecticut: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Griswold v. Connecticut 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

Grutter v. Bollinger

Grutter v. BollingerThe Background of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Barbara Grutter, Michigan resident and applicant to the Law School at the University of Michigan, filed an injunction against the university in 2007; subsequent to her rejection from admissions to the University, she had claimed that applicants classified as minorities – possessing inferior academic records than she – were accepted in lieu of her superior academic records. Almost 20 years prior to this case, Allan Bakke had filed an injunction against the University of California for similar reasons – and had his injunction upheld by the Supreme Court:

In the verdict delivered in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), Bakke cited unfair acceptance policies undertaken by the University of California; Bakke mentioned that applicants deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke – Bakke, who had been rejected from the school, mentioned that his 14th Amendment Rights had been violated

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no racial or ethnic preference shall be given or granted to any particular group by any institution or program in receipt of federal funding or monetary restitution

The Case Profile of Grutter v. Bollinger

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

Date of the Trial: April 1st, 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

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Barbara Grutter against Lee Bollinger within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Grutter maintained that in accordance to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), she was subject to similar violations of her 14th Amendment Rights; she added that the Equality Clause within the 14th Amendment ensured equal translation and expression of the law without regard to race, religion, creed, gender, or ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 306

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 23rd, 2003

Legal Venue of Grutter v. Bollinger: 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 Grutter v. Bollinger case:

Barbara Grutter; Plaintiff – Grutter v. Bollinger

Lee Bollinger; Defendant – Grutter v. Bollinger

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan; in accordance to their ruling, they required the overturning of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke verdict, as well. The reasons for the decision were explained as follows:

Due to the fact that the Law School admission process involved supplemental facets outside of academic records, there was no way to prove that the applicants had been accepted as a result of their respective race(s)

While a quota employed by the admissions committee is indeed a Constitutional violation, the acknowledgment of race with regard to acceptance is defined as the legal protocol innate within Affirmative Action

Associated Legislation with regard to Grutter v. Bollinger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Grutter v. Bollinger 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

Famous Child Abuse Cases

Famous Child Abuse CasesWhat are Child Abuse Cases?

Child Abuse Cases are defined as legal trials addressing the alleged mistreatment of children or minors; these offenses are considered to result in a variety of harmful and damaging to both the safety and wellbeing of the child victim. Charges within child abuse cases can range with regard to the implicit details and circumstances in which an alleged offense was reported as taking place:

Child abuse cases undertaking the legal hearing child abuse can take place in a direct, physical fashion, which includes attacks and sexual assault – however, child abuse can take place verbally and psychologically

Due to the fact that child abuse occur within a variety of settings, which may include a variance with regard to the abuser, the nature of abuse undergone, as well as the repercussions resulting from the child abuse offense

Types of Child Abuse Cases

Within the legal spectrum of Child Abuse Cases, 4 primary types of child abuses are considered to be amongst the most prominent and prevalent classifications of this crime:

Physical child abuse cases are considered to retain the most heightened nature of evidence with regard to the effects of this crime; due to the prominent nature of both the signs and effects of physical child abuse, bodily harm, injury, bruises, cuts, burns, and abrasions are common results of this type of child abuse

Emotional, Mental, Psychological Child Abuse is considered to be amongst the least exact, due to the common lack of physical evidence or signs; victims of this type of child abuse may be subjected to threats, exploitation, insult, and verbal assault from their abusers

Child abuse cases addressing the presumed mistreatment or neglect of a child will typically include a violation of that child’s rights and entitled freedoms; children’s rights provide that children are entitled to their respective parents or guardians providing them with a sufficient quality of life – this includes food, shelter, water, and the ability to participate in social and educational undertakings

Sexual child abuse cases are defined as legal hearings addressing the presumed violation of the rights of children or minors with regard to both an expressed age of consent in conjunction with the engagement in sexual activity; sexual activity in which minors or children are participatory is considered to be illegal, unethical, and unlawful in nature – this can include molestation, sexual activity, and intercourse

Famous Child Abuse Cases

The following are amongst the most notorious child abuse cases that have taken place within the United States:

The McMartin Nursery School Child Abuse Case

The Joel Steinberg Child Abuse Case

The Child Abuse Case of Dave Pelzer

The Roman Polanski Child Abuse Case

The Warren Jeffs Child Abuse Case

Reporting Child Abuse Cases

In the event that you have been abused, are aware of child abuse currently taking place, or are aware of child abuse that has taken place in the past, you are encouraged to contact the Child Abuse Hotline through their toll-free telephone number: 1-800-4-A-CHILD or 1-800-422-4453; all calls are kept confidential and private.

The Kidnapping Case of Charles Lindbergh Jr.

The Kidnapping Case of Charles Lindbergh Jr.What is the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case?

The Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case, which is commonly referred to as the ‘Lindbergh Kidnapping’ – as well as its more sensationalized title as ‘The Crime of the Century’ – was a criminal investigation and legal trial involving the kidnapping and murder of the 2 year old son of Charles Lindbergh. Chas A. Lindbergh, the son of the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, was reported as being taken from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey on March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8pm and 10pm.

Who was Charles Lindbergh?

Charles Lindbergh, born on February 4th, 1902, was considered to be one of the most prominent aviators of his time. Between May 20th and May 21st in 1927, Charles Lindbergh completed the longest nonstop, single passenger, international flight spanning from Long Island, New York to Paris France; Charles Lindbergh achieved this aviary feat in his famed airplane The Spirit of St. Louis. Subsequent to his achievement, Charles Lindbergh was lauded as a national hero; as a result, the kidnapping and murder of his son was given an enormous amount of public and media attention.

The Details of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

On March 1st, 1932, Chas A. Lindbergh was reported to have been abducted from Charles Lindbergh’s home; on May 12th, 1932, the corpse assumed to belong to Chas A. Lindbergh was discovered in the woods nearby the Lindbergh home – upon medical investigation, the cause of death was assumed to be blunt force trauma to the skull, which resulted in a massive skeletal fracture:

Bruno Hauptmann, a German Jew who had immigrated to the United States was accused of both leaving a ransom note demanding the monetary compensation for the safe return of Chas A. Lindbergh; subsequent investigations reported that Hauptmann had used a homemade ladder to access Charles Lindbergh’s home in order to abduct Chas A. Lindbergh – Charles Lindbergh was a known proponent of Anti-Semitism

Subsequent to his trial, within which he maintained his innocence, Bruno Hauptmann was found guilty for kidnapping and sentenced to death; he was executed on April 3rd, 1936

The Mishandling of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

The investigation of the Lindbergh Kidnapping continued after the arrest, conviction, and execution of Bruno Hauptmann; this was due to the fact a multitude of criminology and legal experts maintained that this case was egregiously mishandled by both Charles Lindbergh and the prosecution. As evidence and case studies surfaced, Hauptmann’s guilt was not only questioned, but also denied; the following case details of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case suggest the unfounded evidence and legal flaws latent within the case itself:

Bruno Hauptmann was offered both $90,000, in addition to being spared from execution in the event that he pled guilty to the crime of which he was accused; although a confession would have entitled his family to a large sum of money ensuring their livelihood as well as prevented Hauptmann’s death, both Hauptmann and his wife Anna refused to deliver such a confession – until the time of her death, she maintained her husband’s innocence

The forensic report with regard to both the make of the ladder presumed to be built by Hauptmann was deemed to be incorrect, as well as the identification of the corpse of Chas A. Lindbergh was deemed to be inconclusive

Currently, the legal handling of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case is considered by many to be a legal travesty as a result of the presumed mishandling of the case

The Case Profile of Baby Face Nelson

The Case Profile of Baby Face NelsonWho was Baby Face Nelson?

Lester Joseph Gills, who was more commonly referred to in accordance with his nickname ‘Baby Face Nelson’, was an individual who was classified as a member of organized criminal organizations throughout the late 1920s and early 1930s until the time of his death. In contrast to his seemingly docile nickname, Baby Face Nelson was considered to be amongst the most dangerous, volatile, and violent criminals to have existed within the history of the United States. Over the course of his criminal activity, Baby Face Nelson was accused with a variety of criminal activities, which ranged from murder to racketeering; furthermore, Baby Face Nelson was associated with some of the most notorious and prolific criminals of his time:

Baby Face Nelson was first arrested in 1921 at the age of 13; he was accused of shooting another child with a gun that he had found; subsequent to his release from a juvenile facility, Baby Face Nelson continued to participate in a wide range of criminal activity

Baby Face Nelson was considered to be ‘Public Enemy Number One’ prior to his death in 1934; this was a classification utilized at the time by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) – this classification signified that that the individual classified as such was of the utmost danger to society

The Case Profile of Baby Face Nelson

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

Date of Birth: Baby Face Nelson was born on December 6th, 1908; he was killed on November 27th, 1934 by law enforcement agents – he was 25 years old

Residence: Baby Face Nelson frequented the Chicago area within his early years; after briefly traveling to the Western United States with the intent to commit robbery, he returned to Illinois – he was killed in Wilmette, Illinois

Dates of Crimes: Despite his arrest at 13 years of age, many historians classify Baby Face Nelson’s crime spree as lasting from 1928 to his death in 1934

Criminal Charges: Murder, Robbery, and Racketeering were amongst the many criminal charges associated with Baby Face Nelson

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

Baby Face Nelson first partnered with Al Capone in a variety of Racketeering operations; however, due to Baby Face Nelson’s violent demeanor and erratic tendencies, Al Capone distanced himself from association with Baby Face Nelson

At the end of his life, Baby Face Nelson joined John Dillinger in a variety of robberies and prison escapes; Baby Face Nelson was considered to be amongst the closest to John Dillinger

Victims:  Although there does not exist a concrete determination of the number of Baby Face Nelson’s victims, reports have stated that he is responsible for the deaths of more FBI Agents than any other criminal in the history of the United States

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison Summary pt. 1: Introduction

The landmark Supreme Court Case of Marbury v. Madison is considered to be amongst the most influential legal proceedings undertaken within the history of the Judicial System acting within the United States of America. This Marbury v. Madison Summary will not only explain the nature of the case and the pivotal parties involved, but also the events serving as catalysts for the legal undertaking of this trial.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt. 2: Legal Classification

The Marbury v. Madison case was amongst the first of its kind, which are court cases classified as Administrative Law; administrative law is classified as the legal realm in which any or all interactions involving the Federal Government – ranging from interactions with other bodies of the Federal Government to interactions undertaken with the citizens of the United States – are mandated, overseen, reviewed, and regulated with regard to their expressed legality and constitutionality.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.3: Origins of the Case

The following events led to the Marbury v. Madison case:

John Adams, who was responsible for the appointment of William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace, failed to complete the commission prior to the termination of his presidency; as a Federalist, John Adams is assumed to have attempted to appoint as many Federalists to the cabinet of the President of the United States

The appointment process applicable to commissioning Justices of the Peace – as well as a bulk of other governmental appointees – required that the commission process be completed within the term of the President responsible for the respective appointment; however, William Marbury’s appointment failed to be completed prior to President Elect Thomas Jefferson assuming the office of the Presidency

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt. 4: The Presidential Policy of Thomas Jefferson

William Marbury, expecting to be permitted to assume his role as the newly-appointed Justice of the Peace, was denied commission on the part of President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison; in order to stifle Adams’ presumed attempt to place as many Federalists in the cabinet of the President, Thomas Jefferson had mandated that James Madison refuse to finalize the commission process – this resulted in a denial of William Marbury with regard to his newly-appointed position

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.5: Legal Action

William Marbury, who was both angered and frustrated by what he had maintained was an administrative oversight, brought the case before the Supreme Court; the case was to be reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall. Subsequent to trial, John Marshall maintained that Article III of the Constitution prohibited one branch of the Federal government to force action requested on the part of another branch; although John Marshall maintained that William Marbury was entitled to the position granted to him, the final decision was presumed to belong to Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.6: Conclusion

As a result of the Marbury v. Madison trial, both historians and legislatures alike commend Marshall on his ruling in lieu of the fact that William Marbury was denied his position. The reasons for this sentiment include the following:

John Marshall avoided the risk of allowing the Supreme Court to appear weak and flawed in the eyes of the public; in the event that he had demanded that Marbury be commissioned, he was well aware that Thomas Jefferson could refuse this decree

John Marshall, as a result of the Marbury v. Madison finding, allowed for the determination of statutory legislation with regard to administrative interaction between the branches of the Federal government

The Case Profile of Marbury v. Madison

The Case Profile of Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison Brief Explained

The Marbury v. Madison Brief is a legal brief that depicts the events and circumstances surrounding the eponymous court case considered to be amongst the first of many landmark Supreme Court Cases. The Marbury v. Madison Brief involved a dispute that took place with regard to the appointment process of the Justice of Peace position taking place during the transition of presidential terms undertaken within the Executive Branch of the United States of America; the Marbury v. Madison Brief cited judicial review with regard to the appointments of office mandated by John Adams at the time of the termination of his presidency; these events existed in tandem with President Elect Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to recognize the former president’s mandates.

The Marbury v. Madison Brief

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Marbury v. Madison Brief’:

Date of the Trial: The Marbury v. Madison Brief began on February 11th, 1803

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

United States Reports Case Number: 5 U.S. 137

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: A verdict with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief was delivered on February 24th, 1803

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Marbury v. Madison Brief case:

Plaintiff William Marshall was the appointee to the position of Justice of the Peace; subsequent to his appointment and the termination of Adam’s presidency, President Elect Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison refused to finalize Marshall’s commission process – this resulted in the Marshall’s inability to assume his previously appointed position

Defendant James Madison was appointed as the Secretary of State in conjunction to the cabinet of President Elect Thomas Jefferson; in order to stifle Adams’ attempt to fill the cabinet with Federalists, James Madison was instructed to reject the commission of William Marshall as Justice of the Peace – commissions could only be approved while the appointing President remained in office

Verdict Delivered: The verdict delivered by John Marshall – the first Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States – ruled in favor of James Madison, citing that although William Marshall was entitled to his appointed position, the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government was unable to force the actions of other branches of the Federal Government

Associated Legislation with regard to Marbury v. Madison Brief: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief:

Article III of the United States Constitution prevented the Judicial Branch from forcing the action of another branch of the Federal Government; as a result, Jefferson was not only constitutionally permitted to deny William Marshall’s appointment, but in accordance to this ruling, William Marshall was never appointed as a Justice of the Peace