The Background of Olmstead v. United States:

Olmstead v. United States was a landmark decision offered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Olmstead v. United States reviewed whether the use of wiretapped telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents, without any judicial approval, can be subsequently used as evidence in a federal criminal trial. The use of such information in Olmstead v. United States was evaluated in conjunction with a defendant’s rights latent in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The courts in Olmstead v. United States held that neither the rights and liberties granted in the Fourth nor Fifth Amendments were violated. This decision; however, was later overturned in Katz v. United States.

The case of Olmstead v. United States concerned a group of petitioners, including Roy Olmstead, who directly challenged convictions by arguing that the use of evidence obtained from wiretapped private telephone conversations was a direct violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The petitioners in Olmstead v. United States were convicted for conspiracy for violations of the National Prohibition Act—the men convicted were charged with unlawful possession, transporting and selling alcohol. The evidence obtained through wiretapping revealed that Olmstead and nearly 75 other individuals were engaging in a bootlegging business; Olmstead was the general manager of this business and received 50% of the profits. No laws were violated in regards to the installation of the wiretapping equipment—the officers did not trespass upon the homes or the offices of the defendants.

The Case Profile of Olmstead v. United States

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

Date of the Trial: Olmstead v. United States was argued on February 20-21 of 1928

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 the United States Government against Roy Olmstead within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Olmstead and a group of 72 employees were charged with illegally possessing, transporting and selling alcohol. Olmstead to refute the conviction claimed that the United States Government obtained evidence through the illegal use of wiretapping devices. Olmstead claimed that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protected private conversations form being tapped into.

United States Reports Case Number: 277 U.S. 438

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Olmstead v. United States was decided on June 4, 1928

Legal Venue of Olmstead v. United States: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Taft

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s proscription on unreasonable search and seizure did not apply to the use of wiretaps.

What is a Case Search?

A case search refers to ability to pull-up previously rendered court decisions and evaluates the intricacies as well as the verdicts of the particular case. A case law search may be initiated by an individual or legal professional; the majority of cases and their subsequent ruling are kept on public record to act as precedents for future case hearings. A case law search is a fundamental tool of the judiciary system, where legal professionals and individuals alike can observe the specifics latent in any case to ultimately apply them to their particular legal matter.

A case law search will benefit individuals or legal professionals who undertake or are required to undertake a legal battle. The ability to observe previously-rendered court decisions and the intricacies which surrounded the particular legal matter will aid in constructing an argument (whether for the defense or the prosecution) to better understand the subject matter of the case. Furthermore, a case law search will increase your probability of winning or receiving a favorable settlement; the ability to review a past case will invariably deliver a precedent or ruling which can be applied to a current legal matter.

How to Initiate a Case Search:  

The first step to conducting a case law search requires you to read all available information and intricacies concerning your case. The obtainment of this information will help determine what path you need to follow to engage in your case search. A case law search is typically conducted at your local law library; the majority of verdicts or judgments of a legal matter in a local court system is kept in the archives of legal libraries within the jurisdiction or locality where that particular hearing was held.

The majority of counties throughout the United States have law libraries. Additionally, all law schools throughout the United States are required to have a law library on or near campus, which will store an assortment of precedents and previous cases. As a result of these locations, a case law search must be initiated in a forum or location that houses the tangible books, which compile previous cases.

When you arrive at your particular law school or law library, you must search for a series of numbers and letters that take this form: 86 N.Y 3d 130, 651 N.Y.S. 3d 914 (1991). This example of a citation can be used as a formal address to find the particular case—these numbers tell you two different books, which will provide pertinent information given your inquiry. In this example, if you look on page 130 of volume 86 of the New York Reports, 3rd series, you will find the case you are looking for. The second address in this citation refers to volume 651 of the New York Supplement’s, third series page 914. The year 1991, refers to the date that the case was decided.

You must keep in mind that each state will label its books by different classifications or names, so asking a librarian what the lettering system is will help facilitate your search. In addition to finding cases in your particular library, you can also conduct a case law search online; a case search may be initiated online through law school sites or various law sites.
 

Who is Warren Jeffs?

Warren Jeffs is the acting president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Warren Jeff served as president of this religious organization from 2002 to 2007 and from 2011 to present day.

Warren Jeff, by many followers, is considered the Prophet of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints; as President and prophet of the religious institution, Warren Jeffs wields an enormous amount of religious as well as secular power. This power is primarily in alignment with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’ theocratic principles.

Warren Jeffs Arrested:

Warren Jeffs gained international infamy in May of 2006 when the religious leader was placed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s most wanted list. Warren Jeffs became a target of the FBI for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution in the state of Utah for charges relating to his alleged arrangement of illegal marriages between his adult male followers and numerous underage girls.

Warren Jeffs was arrested in late August of 2006 in Nevada and agreed to undertake a trial in Utah for his role in setting up these illegal marriage. In May and July of 2007, Arizona charged Warren Jeffs with eight additional counts—including partaking in illegal sexual activities with minors and incest—in two separate cases.

William Jeffs’ Court Cases and Legal Troubles:

Warren Jeffs’ trial began in early September of 2007 in St. George Utah. The trial lasted less than a month and on September 25th, Warren Jeffs was found guilty of two counts rape for his role as an accomplice. On November 20, 2007 Warren Jeffs was sentenced to prison for 10 years to life; Warren Jeffs began serving this sentence at the Utah State Prison. This conviction; however, was reversed by the Utah’s Supreme Court on July 27, 2010 because the jury operated under faulty instructions. Since this technicality ultimately freed Warren Jeffs of his previous charges, he was later extradited to Texas. That being said, Warren Jeffs is not free from legal quarrels, for he still faces pending charges of sexual assault and bigamy in connection with a raid on a West Texas ranch that took place in 2008.

The Background of Washington v. Glucksberg

Washington v. Glucksberg was a legal matter in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the right to assistance in committing suicide is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Dr. Harold Glucksberg, along with four other doctors, a non-profit organization and three terminally ill patients challenged Washington State’s ruling against assisted suicide through the passing of the natural Death Act of 1979. The group of physicians, terminally ill patients and the Compassion in Dying organization claimed that the act of assisting one’s suicide was a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution through the Due Process Clause.

Washington v. Glucksberg Decision:

The Supreme Court Case of Washington v. Glucksberg reversed a previous ruling administered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who claimed that a ban on physician assisted suicide embodied in the state’s Natural Death Act of 1979 was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The court claimed that because an assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty, it is not protected under the 14th Amendment.

The case was eventually heard in the United States Supreme Court, where Chief Justice William Rehnquist stated that the ban was rational because it furthered various compelling state interests, primarily the preservation of human life and protecting the mentally ill or disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. The ban, according to Washington v. Glucksberg, stated that if the court system declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutional right, the nation would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary assisted suicide.

The Case Profile of Washington v. Glucksberg:

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

Date of the Trial: January 8, 1997

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 26, 1997

Legal Venue of Washington v. Glucksberg: United States Supreme Court by way of the United Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rhenquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment did not protect the right to commit assisted suicide

The Background of Roth v. United States

Roth v. United States was a landmark case heard before the United States Supreme Court. In Roth v. United States, the United States Supreme Court redefined the United States Constitutional test that was used to determine what constitutes obscene material that was left unprotected by the First Amendment.

Samuel Roth ran a literary business in New York City and was convicted under a federal statute for sending obscene, lewd, or filthy materials through the mail for advertising a publication titled American Aphrodite.

Roth v. United States Trial:

Roth v. United States was decided as a 6-3 decision; the Court defined obscenity as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material that meets this test could be labeled and subsequently banned as being “obscene.”

In 1973, in the Supreme Court Case Miller v. California, a five-person majority agreed on the creation of a test for determining constitutionally unprotected obscenity—this test effectively superseded the Roth test.

The Case Profile of Roth v. United States

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

Date of the Trial: Roth v. United States was argued on April 22 1957.

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: 354 U.S. 476

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Roth v. United States was decided on June 24, 1957

Legal Venue of Roth v. United States: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Verdict Delivered: In Roth v. United States the courts stated that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. In addition to this ruling, the United States Supreme Court created a test that would more accurately and strictly define “obscene materials.”

What are Case Studies?

Case studies are common research methods incorporated within the field of social science.  Case studies therefore require the exhaustive evaluation and studying of a person, a small group of individuals, a single situation, or a specific case. Case studies are developed to reveal a correlation between two factors; case studies are incorporated into a social phenomenon or a legal matter to reveal whether or not a causal relationship can be proven. For example, a common social case study may reveal that obese people tend to drink a lot of skim milk. This information and subsequent conclusion would reveal that there is a direct correlation or at least an association between being obese and drinking skim milk. Although there is no scientific evidence that links drinking skim milk to obesity, case studies in this example, simply reveal a correlation between the two.

The evaluation of case studies is based on the in-depth investigation of a single individual, a group, or a specific event. As a result of this somewhat broad definition, case studies may be descriptive or explanatory in nature. The latter form is typically used to explore causation in order to find the underlying principles of a particular legal matter or social phenomenon.

As oppose to using samples and following a strict set of rules or a protocol to examine a limited number of variables, case studies will incorporate various methods that involve an in-depth examination of a single incident or a particular case. Case studies provide a systematic method to accurately investigate information, collect data, analyze information and report the results of a particular legal matter. As a result of these characteristics and general benefits, a researcher participating in case studies may gain a sharpened understanding of why the particular instance occurred as it did and what may become critical to further research and review. Case studies, through these benefits, lend themselves to both testing and generating hypotheses.

Case Studies as Research Strategy:

Another common suggestion aligned with case studies is that the method can be regarded as a researched strategy or as an empirical inquiry that investigates an odd occurrence within a real-life context. Case studies, as a research tool, means single and multiple case studies will include quantitative evidence, will rely on multiple sources of evidence and will benefit from any prior research or development of the underlying theoretical propositions.

Case studies are held separate from quantitative research; additionally, case studies can be founded and based on any combination of quantitative or qualitative evidence.

Structure of Case Studies:

A typical case is often not attached to a plethora of information; to clarify lines of causation it is typically more useful to evaluate subjects that offer a revealing set of information aligned with the particular case. As a result, a case selection that is primarily based on representatives or individual subjects will rarely be able to produce particular and exacting bits of insights. When selecting a subject for case studies, a researcher will use information-oriented sampling as oppose to random sampling.

What is a Case Study?

Case studies are distinct research methods incorporated within the field of social science.  Case studies require the exhaustive evaluation in alignment with the studying of a person, a small group of individuals, a single situation, or a specific case. Case studies are developed to reveal a correlation between two factors; case studies are incorporated into a social phenomenon or a legal matter to reveal whether or not a causal relationship can be proven.

For example, a common social case study may reveal that a lot of criminals tend to look at or purchase pornographic material. This information and subsequent conclusion would reveal that there is a direct correlation or at least an association between committing crimes and purchasing pornography.  Although there is no scientific evidence that links observing pornography to committing crimes, case studies in this example, simply reveal a correlation between the two.

The evaluation of case studies is based on the in-depth investigation of a single individual, a group, or a specific event. As a result of this somewhat broad definition, case studies may be descriptive or explanatory in nature. The latter form is typically used to explore causation in order to find the underlying principles of a particular legal matter or social phenomenon.

How do Case Studies Work?

As oppose to using samples and following a strict set of rules or a protocol to examine a limited number of variables, case studies will incorporate various methods that involve an in-depth examination of a relationship, a single incident or particular legal matter. Case studies provide a systematic method to accurately investigate information, collect data, analyze information and report the results of a particular legal matter. As a result of these characteristics and general benefits, a researcher participating in case studies may gain a sharpened understanding of why the particular instance occurred as it did and what may become critical to further research and review. Case studies, through these benefits, lend themselves to both testing and generating hypotheses.

Case Study Examples:

Common case study examples, in the modern era, will evaluate consumer behavior. These forms of case study examples, for instance, will evaluate why today’s consumers are cutting out needless purchases and getting rid of gadgets or gizmos that don’t add value to their lives. These case study examples will elucidate on why consumers will migrate to brands that express these particular values.

Other forms of case study examples will evaluate human behavior and the direct effects that lifestyle choices or consumer choices pose on the environment. Environmental case study examples, during the modern era, are extremely common to help quell some critical environmental problems. Directly linked into this category are case study examples that evaluate the benefits of various alternative energy sources. These forms of case study examples are distributed and evaluated to help reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

What is a Case Study?

A case study is a research method that is incorporated within the field of social science.  Case studies require a thorough evaluation that is predominantly aligned with the behavioral issues of a person or a small group of individuals.

A Case study will be developed to reveal a correlation between two factors; case studies are incorporated into a social phenomenon or a legal matter to reveal whether or not a causal relationship can be proven. For example, a common social case study may reveal that a large percentage of criminals tend to look at or purchase pornographic material. This information and subsequent conclusion would reveal that there is a direct correlation or at least an association between committing crimes and purchasing pornography.  Although there is no scientific evidence that links observing pornography to committing crimes, case studies in this example, simply reveal a correlation between the two.

All case studies aim to elucidate on a social phenomenon that denotes the presence of a relationship between goods, individuals or other entities. Regardless of the subject matter or the type of relationship being investigated, all of the research methods must incorporate a formal case study format.


Case Study Format and How to Write a Case Study:

A case study may be used in an academic or professional setting as a thorough and unique research method. Although there are several types of case studies (exploratory, illustrative critical instance, medical, narrative and cumulative) there are a few basic guidelines on how to write a formal case study and how to formulate a case study format.

To conduct a case study using proper case study format, you must first construct a template that will act as your guideline throughout the evaluation and writing process. This case study format and the guideline attached will improve how the document is organized, as well as how the document looks, feels and reads.

Following the creation of a guideline, to properly follow case study format, you must draw your reader in with a unique and catchy title. The title of the case study should attract the reader and pull them into keep reading. When you begin writing the paper, you must first identify the problem that is being explored within the case study.

Exploring the problem, in alignment with a formal case study format, will incorporate your ability to include a suitable or effective case/effect theory. When doing this you must give as much background as possible. During this process you must discuss the possible solution and how the specific issue was specifically resolved—when you are explaining the resolution you must elucidate upon which methods were used in the process.

After you have resolved the issue, proper case study format requires you to describe the benefits of the study. Describe how the benefits affect the group to which your case study is aimed.

Proper case study format requires you to utilize general-to-specific-to-general approaches; this approach should be used because it grasps the reader’s attention and the reveals how it applies to the group as a whole.

The Background of United States v. Morrison:

United States v. Morrison is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which stated that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 violated provisions of the United States Constitution because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and more specifically, under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Violence against Women Act of 1994 contained a provision for a federal civil remedy to victims of gender-based violence, even in those instances when no criminal charges were filed by the victim. The case of United States v. Morrison revolves around Virginia Tech freshman college student, Christy Brzonkala, who was allegedly assaulted and raped by Antonio Morrison and James Crawford—members of the University’s football team.

School-conducted hearings proved futile, for the Court proceedings failed to punish both Morrison and Crawford. Furthermore, a subsequent state trial could not find sufficient evidence to either man; however, Brzonkala then filed a separate suit under the provisions of the Violence against Women Act.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia stated that the United States Congress lacked authority to enact the provision within the Violence against Women Act. Brzonkala then appealed the decision where a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision 201. The Supreme Court of the United States then affirmed, in a 5-4 decision, that the United States Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment to enact the law.

The Case Profile of United States v. Morrison:

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

Date of the Trial: United States v. Morrison was argued on January 11, 2000

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: 529 U.S. 598

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: United States v. Morrison was decided on May 15, 2000

Legal Venue of United States v. Morrison: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court stated that the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and the provision within the act, is unconstitutional for it exceeds congressional power under the Commerce clause and also under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What are Cases?

Cases, in the scope of the law, refer to an official legal review of a dispute between opposing parties. Court cases will evaluate any number of legal issues that arise between opposing parties; the severity of the charges and the subject matter revolving around a court case will vary based on a case by case circumstance.

There are two predominant types of court cases: civil and criminal. Within each court case; however, there is a defending party (individual or party who is defending the claims made against them) and an accusing party or plaintiff who seeks justice for the alleged wrongdoing precipitated by the defending party.

Types of Cases:

Civil Cases: Civil cases, commonly known as lawsuits, begin when a plaintiff files a legally binding document called a complaint with a court system. The complaint, which initiates all civil cases, informs the court of the wrongdoing that took place and was precipitated by the defendant and caused the plaintiff to allegedly suffer some form of physical or monetary damage. Civil cases, similar to all forms of legal cases, aim to find a resolution or legal remedy to the underlying problem.

A civil case, when compared to a criminal case, can be resolved outside of the courtroom through arbitration or mediation. These forms of remedy may take the form of an injunction (which requires the defendant to perform or refrain from delivering some sort of action), an exchange of money (or a settlement), or a declaratory judgment, which will determine that the plaintiff has established legal rights that cannot be infringed.

In a civil case, the plaintiff must make a genuine effort to inform the defendant of the case through a service of process. This procedure informs the defendant similar that the plaintiff filed a complaint or legal matter with the underlying court. At any point during civil court cases, the parties may agree to partake in a settlement, which effectively ends the case, although in some situations, such as in class action lawsuits, a settlement will require court approval in order to maintain its legal binding status.

Criminal Court Cases: In common law jurisdictions, criminal court cases begin when a person suspected of a crime or felony is indicted by a grand jury or charged with the offense by a government official (district attorney or prosecutor).

Similar to civil court cases, all criminal court cases may also be settled before a formal trial; this process, which is known as a plea bargain, is offered in some jurisdictions and will be made available in alignment with the severity of the allegation. If a person does not attend a trial on their scheduled court date, they will incur additional penalties.

Fundamentals of all Cases:

All cases, whether civil or criminal, are based off the idea that any dispute will be resolved when a legal procedure is attached to the issue; the legal procedure in all court cases will evaluate all evidence and facts involved in the case. The legal procedure, thus, determines the truth of the issue with respect to claims of guilt, liability, innocence or a lack of fault.