What is a Cold Case?

A cold case refers to a tangible crime scene or scene of an accident that has yet to be solved to the fullest extent. The predominant characteristic of a cold case is that the matter revolving around the crime scene has remained pending or unsolved to the point that it no longer maintains the subject of a recent criminal investigation.

As a result of this prolonged unsolved status, no new information can be obtained through criminal investigation; the only new information that could emerge in a cold case would come from a new witness testimony, the re-evaluation of material evidence, the re-examination of archives, and any fresh activities of the suspect, meaning repeated murders or repeated offenses that are aligned with the original criminal matter. In addition, new technical methods that were developed after the case may be used on the surviving evidence to re-evaluate the causes in the pending cold case.

Characteristics of a Cold Case:

In most instances, a cold case will typically involve major felony crimes or violent behavior, such as rape or murder. Dissimilar to the majority of unsolved minor crimes, a cold case—due to its violent subject matter—is typically not subjected to a statute of limitations. Aside from violent crimes, a disappearance or missing person may also be considered cold cases if the victim has not been seen or heard from for a certain amount of time, such as the case of Natalee Holloway or other infamous missing person cases.

Some cases become labeled as a cold case when a seemingly solved case is re-opened due to the presence or discovery of new evidence which firmly points away from the original suspects. This situation happens surprisingly often and most often occurs as a result of a miscarriage of justice. Other cold cases will occur when the crime, in question is discovered after the incident took place—this situation typically arises when investigators discover human remains.

What makes a Case go cold?

A case is considered pending, unsolved or col until a suspect has been identified, charged and subsequently tried for the crime in question. A case (typically criminal) that goes to trial and does not result in a conviction can also be evaluated as a cold case and kept on the books pending the delivery of new evidence. Typically, a case is not solved but forensics or DNA evidence will help determine if the crime and suspect involved in the crime acts in a serial nature.

Sometimes a viable suspect may be overlooked or simply ignored due to unsubstantial evidence, the presence of a copycat or likelier suspect, or a tendency of investigators to zero in on another suspect while excluding all other possibilities.

A cold case will be re-evaluated through the presence of several factors such as: new forensic evidence, a fresh look at old evidence or the delivery of new circumstantial evidence. Other factors will include: new witnesses coming forward with novel information, new suspects who were previously overlooked or the presence of alibi witnesses who may affirm or recant their original stories. 

The Background of Wallace v. Jaffree

Wallace v. Jaffree was a landmark Supreme Court case that revolved around the issue of silent school prayers.

An Alabama statute was introduced that authorized teachers, in all school districts, to set aside on minute at the start of each school day to conduct a silent prayer or silent meditation. Ishmael Jaffree, an American citizen and father of three Mobile County public school students, filed a suit on May 28, 1982 against the mobile county School Board and various school officials. Jaffree sought an injunction and a declaratory judgment that would restrain the defendants from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

Wallace v. Jaffree Trial:

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama allowed the practice of silent prayer and ruled in favor the state. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed this ruling, by claiming that a mandatory silent prayer was unconstitutional. The case was eventually heard by the United States Supreme Court in Wallace v. Jaffree. In this trial, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, against the state of Alabama by claiming that the law had violated constitutional principle by forcing students to engage in a silent prayer.

The Case Profile of Wallace v. Jaffree

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

Date of the Trial: Wallace v. Jaffree was argued on December 10, 1973

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: 414 U.S. 563

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Wallace v. Jaffree was decided on January 21, 1974

Legal Venue of Wallace v. Jaffree: The United States Supreme Court by way of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

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

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

The enforcement of a silent prayer on school districts throughout a given state is a violation of the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that an individual is free to practice any religion they so choose.

What are Court Cases?

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

There are two predominant types of court cases: civil or 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 Court Cases:

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

A civil case, in contrast to criminal court cases, can be resolved outside of the courtroom through arbitration or mediation. This form of remedy sought may be an injunction (which requires the defendant to perform or refrain from delivering some sort of action), an exchange of money, or a declaratory judgment, which will determine that the plaintiff has established legal rights that cannot be infringed. Whoever wins the declaratory judgment will be either released from custody or will get nothing, if the winning party is the accuser.

The plaintiff, in civil court cases, must make a genuine effort to inform the defendant of the case through a service of process, where the plaintiff delivers to the defendant similar documents that the plaintiff filed with the 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.

Common elements of all Court Cases:

All court 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.

Who is Rodney King?

Rodney King was born on April 2, 1965 and is best known for his involvement in a police brutality case that involved the Los Angeles Police Department on March 3, 1991.

Rodney King’s Confrontation with the LAPD:

On the night of March 2, 1991, Rodney King and two passengers (Freddie Helms and Bryant Allen) were driving in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, California. Prior to driving, Rodney King and his two friends spent the night watching a basketball and consuming alcoholic beverages at a friend’s house.

At 12:30 am, Officers Melanie and Tim Singer (a husband and wife team of the LAPD’s California Highway patrol department spotted King’s speeding down the highway. According to statements issued by Rodney King, he originally refused to pull over because a DUI conviction would violate his parole for a previous robbery charge.

Instead of pulling over, Rodney King exited the freeway where a chase continued through residential neighborhoods at speeds ranging from 55 to 80 miles per hour. At this juncture, several police units and a helicopter had joined the chase. Following approximately 8 miles of driving, the officers eventually cornered Rodney King’s automobile. When the officers approached the car they demanded that the passengers exit the vehicle and lie face down on the ground—orders which were immediately respected by Helms and Allen. While the passengers exited the car, Rodney King remained in the vehicle.  When King finally exited the car, he acted in a disorderly fashion. While acted brazenly, Officer Melanie Singer removed her gun and demanded that King lie on the ground—Singer’s actions were prompted by a gesture made by Rodney King that appeared as though he was reaching for a weapon.

Use of a Taser:

When Officer Singer approached Rodney King to make the arrest, other officers intervened to subdue King. When the officers surrounded Rodney King he physically resisted; Rodney King rose to his feet and allegedly struck some of the officers on the scene. During this time, King refused further orders to get down on the ground. This refusal ultimately sparked Officer Stacey Koon to fire a Taser into King’s back.  The Taser shot temporarily forced Rodney King to his knees.

When King stood back up, Koon fired the Taser again, which ultimately knocked King to the ground. During the second Taser shot, officers converged on King and struck the man with their batons, hitting him in the head. The officers hit Rodney King several times with their batons. As King tried to get up again, the officers delivered blows to King’s joints, ultimately disabling him. Finally, after 56 baton blows and six kicks, five officers swarmed King, placed him in handcuffs, and dragged him on his stomach to the side of the road to await the arrival of a rescue ambulance.

While the officers were beating King, George Holliday, a private citizen, caught the entire beating on video from his nearby apartment.

Aftermath of the Beating:

From the beating Rodney King suffered a broken right ankle, a fracture facial bone and numerous bruises and cuts. The Los Angeles district attorney charged officers Powell, Briseno, Wind and Koon with use of excessive force. The scene sparked national attention and led to numerous riots throughout the city of Los Angeles. The riots grew so severe that the U.S. Army, the Marines and the National Guard were called in to restore order. The riots caused more than 7,000 fires, 53 deaths, nearly 2,400 injuries and over $1 billion in financial losses.

The trial was heard in a federal court where Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were found guilty by the grand jury. For their charges the two officers received 30 months in prison—the other officers were acquitted of all charges. Rodney King, in turn, was awarded $3.8 million in a civil case.

What is a Case Study?

A case study is a distinct type of research methods that is incorporated within the field of social science.  A case study is a research paper that is delivered in a specific format and submitted as a formalized document. A case study can come in many forms and are typically evaluated and developed in an academic or business setting.

All 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 used to elucidate upon a social phenomenon, a legal matter, or an empirical question 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.

Why is a Case Study Used?

In academic circles, particularly business schools, a case study will be used to evaluate individual or consumer behavior in alignment with a particular industry or market. Harvard business cases, for example, are complex analytical tools that will elucidate upon the relationship between a group of consumers and a broader sociological issue. For example, common case studies may evaluate alternative energy sources and their direct benefit or cost placed on the environment and the individual consumer.

A case study can be used for an assortment of reasons, but for the most part, the information-based study aims at revealing a relationship between an individual and a greater entity to decipher why people make the decisions they make or why something purchased or obtained imposes particular aftereffects.

Harvard Business Cases:

When the Harvard business school first started, the faculty members quickly realized that there were no textbooks or scholarly journals that were suitable to teach a graduate program in business. The faculty’s first solution was to interview leading business professionals and to create detailed accounts of how those individuals operated in their particular businesses. These Harvard business cases were typically written by the faculty themselves and later refined in the classroom before they were published.

Additional documentation, such as financial statements, short biographies and time-lines were attached to these Harvard business cases to further elaborate the behavioral methods of professionals. As a result, these compiled reports acted as the foundation for the Harvard business school’s curriculum; students evaluated the decisions made by these professionals  and drew conclusions to their reasoning as well as the circumstances that resulted from such business decisions.

Who are the Rosenbergs?

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were American communists who were ultimately executed for committing espionage against the United States Government. The Rosenbergs passed highly classified information to the Soviet Union concerning the United States’ progress and efforts regarding the atomic bomb. The Rosenbergs, as a result of their conspiracy against the United States government, were the first civilians to be executed in the history of the United States.

The Early Years:

Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were born into Jewish families in the United States; the Rosenbergs joined the Communist party during their youths. When the Second World War commenced, Julius Rosenberg was working for the single corps; however, he was later dismissed when his role within the Communist party was revealed.

After being dismissed, Julius Rosenberg went to work for Ethel’s brother; the pair gathered information concerning the United States Government and the atomic bomb.

When the Soviet Union successfully produced a nuclear weapon (following the close of the Second World War) the United States grew deeply suspicious. Subsequent investigations revealed a complex network of espionage and spies who according to the United States Government, passed information to the Russians. The United States Government believed that this information was passed because the spies sympathized with the Russian Government or because they felt that the United States should not possess sole control of nuclear weapons. Ethel’s brother was ultimately pinned for his role in this network; however, he immediately passed on the name of the Rosenbergs to reduce his involvement.

FBI Investigation of the Rosenbergs:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested the Rosenbergs in hopes of forcing Julius to confess; the FBI assumed that Julius would be forced to confess to ultimately save his wife from prosecution. This strategy; however, proved unsuccessful for the Rosenbergs pled the Fifth Amendment during their trials.

During the Rosenbergs’ trials, the guilt of the couple was essentially assumed; it was not until after the trial ended that international outcry shed light on this assumed guilt. Despite two years of controversy and campaigning against the trial, the United States’ government convicted the Rosenbergs and sentenced them to death.

Later evidence involving the Rosenbergs revealed that Julius was most certainly involved in espionage against the United States Federal Government; the value in regards to the Rosenbergs punishment however, is widely disputed.

The Venona Project:

The majority of information and evidence surrounding the Rosenbergs and their role in espionage against the United States government came from the Venona Project—a cooperative effort between the United States and Great Britain to intercept and decode various Soviet communications. These efforts ultimately shed light on the Rosenbergs’ efforts in passing confidential information to Soviet Union concerning the atomic bomb. As a result of the controversy and public interest surrounding the Rosenbergs and their trial, numerous documents concerning the case have been made public through the Central intelligence Agency.

Who is Jeffrey Dahmer?

Jeffrey Dahmer was an infamous American serial killer and notorious sex offender. In total, Jeffrey Dahmer murdered 17 men and young boys—the majority of Dahmer’s victims were of African or Asian descent—between the late 1970s and early 1990s. Jeffrey Dahmer is unfortunately known for the savageness and brutality for which he killed and subsequently disposed of his victims; Dahmer’s murders were particularly savage, for they commonly involved rape, dismemberment, torture, necrophilia and cannibalism.

The Early Years:

Jeffrey Dahmer was born in West Allis, Wisconsin on May 21, 1960. By all accounts, Jeffrey Dahmer’s childhood was defined and regarded as normal; however, when Dahmer reached the age of 15, he grew increasingly reserved and withdrawn from social interactions. As a youth, Dahmer would shy away from normal childhood activities, opting instead to bike around his neighborhood looking for dead animals, which he dissected at home. By the time Jeffrey Dahmer reached high school he was a raging alcohol and classified as extremely depressed.’

After immediately dropping out of Ohio State University, Jeffrey Dahmer was forced to enter the military by his father. Although Jeffrey Dahmer thrived at first in the organized and disciplined structure of the military, he was discharged after two years of service due to alcoholism.

In 1982, after being arrested for disorderly conduct and public intoxication, Jeffrey Dahmer moved in with his grandmother in West Allis. During this juncture, Dahmer’s behavior grew increasingly weird; his grandmother routinely found weapons in his room and Dahmer was arrested twice for indecent exposure in 1982 and 1986.

The Jeffrey Dahmer Murders:

After being arrested and due to his strange behavior, Dohmer’s grandparents kicked them out of their home in the summer of 1988. After finding an apartment on Milwaukee’s West side, Jeffrey Dahmer was arrested for drugging and fondling a 13-yeard old boy. For this obscene crime, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to five years probation and required to register as a sex offender. After receiving parole, Dahmer moved into a new apartment; shortly thereafter, Dahmer went on a vicious killing spree that ultimately ended with his arrest in 1991.

While still living with his father, Jeffrey Dahmer committed his first murder in the summer of 1978. With his family away, Dahmer picked up a hitchhiker, invited him back to his father’s house for drinks and ‘sexual activity.’ When the man tried to leave, Dahmer bludgeoned his victim with a barbell and buried his corpse in the backyard.

Nine years after his first murder, Dahmer claimed his next victim. Following this attack, Dahmer continued to kill sporadically: Dahmer committed two murders in 1988, one in the early part of 1989 etc. Dahmer commonly picked up his victims in gay bars, drugged them and then savagely murdered them. Dahmer, as a psychotic post-humorous ritual, would often keep his victim’s body parts or skulls in his apartment refrigerator. 

Jeffrey Dahmer picked up his murdering pace in the early 1990s. Using his own residence as the central hub for his devastation, Jeffrey Dahmer averaged one murder a week during the summer of 1991.

Jeffrey Dahmer’s Arrest:

On July 22, 1991 Jeffrey Dahmer lured another potential victim, Tracy Edwards, into his Milwaukee apartment. Based on the would-be victim’s testimony, Dahmer struggled in subduing Edwards. With a large butcher knife in hand, Dahmer forced Edwards into the bathroom, where the prospective victim saw pictures of mangled bodies and acknowledged terrible smells coming from barrels that were strewn throughout the room. Edwards, in a state of panic, kicked Jeffrey Dahmer in the stomach and sprinted out into the street where he eventually waved down a police car. Edwards brought the officer’s back to Dahmer’s apartment where a search revealed gruesome displays of murder and torture. Severed heads, photographs of murdered victims, and humane remains were in Dahmer’s refrigerator as well as throughout his entire apartment. 

Jeffrey Dahmer’s Trial and Death:

Jeffrey Dahmer was indicted on 17 murder charges (later reduced to 15) and after two weeks of trial, the court found Dahmer sane and guilty on all 15 counts. As a result of the viciousness and serial-nature of his crimes, Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to 15 life terms or 957 years in prison.

Dahmer was extradited to Ohio where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian. Dahmer was attacked by fellow inmates for the nature of his savage crimes. On November 28, 1994, while partaking in janitorial work, Dahmer and another inmate were severely beaten with a broom handle by fellow inmate Christoper Scarver. Dahmer dies of severe head trauma while on his way to the emergency room; his brain was taken for study.

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.”

The Background of South Dakota v. Dole:

South Dakota v. Dole was a landmark Supreme Court case that revolved around federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

The United States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was designed to discourage individual states from lowering the drinking age in 1984. The Act effectively achieved their goals by withholding 5% of state taxes; in 1988 this amount was increased to 10%. South Dakota challenged this law; the state had allowed 19-year olds to purchase beer that contained up to 3.2% alcohol.

South Dakota v. Dole Trial:

The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Congress, when applying its taxing and spending clauses, was not violating the 21st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress would only be in violation if the condition applied was ambiguous, did not promote the “general welfare”, and did not relate to the “federal interest in particular national projects or programs.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars federal regulation of the individual states and it has often been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit the Federal Government from applying regulations to the drinking age. That being said, the Supreme Court of the United States did not find Congress to run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendment when enacting the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. 

The Case Profile of South Dakota v. Dole:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘South Dakota v. Dole’:

Date of the Trial: South Dakota v. Dole was argued on April 28, 1987.

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

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: South Dakota v. Dole was decided on June 23, 1987

Legal Venue of South Dakota v. Dole: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole found that Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds and revenue that is disbursed to the individual states. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact South Dakota lawyers.

The Background of the slaughter-house cases

The Slaughter-House Cases was a landmark Supreme Court decision, which acted as the first interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Slaughter-House cases is viewed as a fundamental court decision in regards to early civil right law; the Supreme Court of the United States read the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the “privileges or immunities” to all individuals of all states within the United States, but not those immunities or privileges incident to the citizenship of a state.

The Slaughter-house cases consolidated three Supreme Court cases that all dealt with the 14th Amendment: The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company; The Live-Stock Dealers’ and Butchers’ Association of New Orleans, and Charles Cavaroc v. The State of Louisiana; The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company

In the mid-19th century, the city of New Orleans was plagued by pollution as a result of animal byproducts that came from local slaughterhouses; the byproducts flooded the city whenever the tide from the Mississippi river was low. Numerous slaughterhouses would gut roughly 300,000 animals per year and the entrails would be dumped into the river, which ultimately affected the purity of the city’s drinking water.

In response to the polluting of the river, a New Orleans grand jury recommended that the slaughterhouses be moved to the southern portion of the city; however, since the majority of the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the grand jury’s recommendations held little weight. The city later appealed to the state legislature and as a result, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that allowed the city to create a centralized corporation that consolidated all slaughterhouses in New Orleans. 

In response to this legislation, over four hundred members of the Butchers’ Benevolent Association joined together to sue the corporation’s takeover of the slaughterhouse industry.

Slaughter-house cases Trial:

The lower courts in New Orleans favored the states and found the creation of the corporation to be within the state’s powers. Following this decision, six cases were appealed to the Supreme Court: the butchers based these claims on the privileges or immunities, due process and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel Miller, stated that the court held a narrow interpretation of the amendment and ruled that it ultimately did not restrict the police powers of the state.

The Case Profile of the slaughter-house cases

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘the slaughter-house cases’:

Date of the Trial: The Slaughter-house cases were argued on January 11, 1872 and re-argued on February 3-5 of 1873

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: 83 U.S. 36

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The Slaughter-house cases were decided on April 14, 1873

Legal Venue of the slaughter-house cases: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Salmon Chase

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court of the United States found that the privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment while privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state are not protected.