- published: 31 Dec 2020
- views: 152
Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury.
Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The court went on to elaborate: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one."
Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), is a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.
At the relevant time, Georgia imposed a poll tax of $1.00 per year, levied generally on all inhabitants. The statute exempted from the tax all persons under 21 or over 60 years of age, and all females who do not register for voting. Under the state constitution, the tax must be paid by the person liable, together with arrears, before he can be registered for voting.
Nolan Breedlove, a white male, 28 years of age, declined to pay the tax, and was not allowed to register to vote. He filed a lawsuit challenging the Georgia law under the Fourteenth (both the Equal Protection Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause) and the Nineteenth Amendments. T. Earl Suttles was named defendant in the case in his official capacity as tax collector of Fulton County, Georgia.
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well. The appeals court had previously ruled that opening and searching the closed portable containers without a warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though the warrantless vehicle search was permissible due to existing precedent.
On November 27, 1978, Washington, D.C. police detectives received a tip from a reliable source describing a man known as "Bandit" who was selling illegal narcotics stored in the trunk of his car. The informant gave the location of the car and a description of both car and driver. The detectives discovered the parked car, and called for a computer check on the car, which confirmed that the car's owner matched the description and used the alias "Bandit". Shortly thereafter they observed the car being driven by a man matching the description. They stopped the car and ordered the driver out. After noticing a bullet on the front seat, they searched the glove compartment and discovered a pistol, at which point they arrested the driver, identified as Albert Ross. A detective then opened the trunk and discovered a closed brown paper bag. He opened the bag and found numerous bags containing white powder, which were later identified as heroin. During a later search, they also found and opened a zippered red leather pouch, which contained $3,200 in cash. No warrant was obtained for these searches.
S-45A was an American satellite, which was lost in a launch failure in 1961. The satellite was intended to operate in a highly elliptical orbit, from which it was to have provided data on the shape of the ionosphere, and on the Earth's magnetic field. It was part of the Explorer programme, and would have been designated Explorer 12 had it reached orbit. It was the second of two identical satellites to be launched; the first, S-45, had also been lost in a launch failure, earlier in the year.
S-45A was launched aboard a Juno II rocket, serial number AM-19G. It was the final flight of the Juno II. The launch took place from Launch Complex 26B at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station at 19:48:05 UTC on 24 May 1961. The system which was intended to ignite the second stage malfunctioned, and as a result that stage failed to ignite. The rocket failed to achieve orbit.
S100 calcium-binding protein A13 (S100A13) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the S100A13 gene.
The protein encoded by this gene is a member of the S100 family of proteins containing 2 EF-hand calcium-binding motifs. S100 proteins are localized in the cytoplasm and/or nucleus of a wide range of cells, and involved in the regulation of a number of cellular processes such as cell cycle progression and differentiation. S100 genes include at least 13 members which are located as a cluster on chromosome 1q21. This protein is widely expressed in various types of tissues with a high expression level in thyroid gland. In smooth muscle cells, this protein co-expresses with other family members in the nucleus and in stress fibers, suggesting diverse functions in signal transduction. Multiple alternatively spliced transcript variants encoding the same protein have been found for this gene.
S100A13 has been shown to interact with SYT1 and FGF1.
Up-regulation of S100A13 was detected in cystic papillary thyroid carcinoma and association of S100A13 expression and chemotherapy resistance was shown in proteomics study of melanoma.
S100 calcium-binding protein A11 (S100A11) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the S100A11 gene.
The protein encoded by this gene is a member of the S100 family of proteins containing 2 EF-hand calcium-binding motifs. S100 proteins are localized in the cytoplasm and/or nucleus of a wide range of cells, and involved in the regulation of a number of cellular processes such as cell cycle progression and differentiation. S100 genes include at least 13 members which are located as a cluster on chromosome 1q21. This protein may function in motility, invasion, and tubulin polymerization. Chromosomal rearrangements and altered expression of this gene have been implicated in tumor metastasis.
S100A11 has been shown to interact with Nucleolin and S100B.
Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case was based upon a dispute regarding the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The Court held that in adjudications of church property disputes, 1) courts cannot rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching, 2) where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decision of that structure, and 3) in the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation. Because the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church had a clear internal authority structure, the court granted control of the property to that group, even though it was only supported by a minority of the congregation.
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #609
This is an audio version of the Wikipedia Article: Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution 00:01:36 1 Text 00:02:10 2 Background 00:09:26 3 Proposal and ratification 00:13:27 4 Post-ratification law Listening is a more natural way of learning, when compared to reading. Written language only began at around 3200 BC, but spoken language has existed long ago. Learning by listening is a great way to: - increases imagination and understanding - improves your listening skills - improves your own spoken accent - learn while on the move - reduce eye strain Now learn the vast amount of general knowledge available on Wikipedia through audio (audio article). You could even learn subconsciously by playing the audio while you are sleeping! If you are planning to...
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #907
The Twenty-fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964. Southern states of the former Confederacy adopted poll taxes in laws of the late 19th century and new constitutions from 1890 to 1908, after the Democratic Party had generally regained control of state legislatures decades after the end of Reconstruction, as a measure to prevent African Americans and often poor whites from voting. Use of the poll taxes by states was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1937 decision Breedlove v...
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #332
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #561
Landmark Supreme Court Case Series - Case #74
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview Minor v. Happersett | 88 U.S. 162 (1875) The United States Constitution is more then two hundred and thirty years old, and it’s sobering to realize that for most of that time, it allowed for state-sanctioned discrimination against women. An example of that discrimination arose in the 1875 case of Minor versus Happersett. Virginia Minor, a Missouri resident and a leader in the women’s suffrage movement, tried in 1872 to register to vote. But Missouri’s constitution and laws only allowed men to vote, so Reese Happersett, the registrar, rejected her application. Minor sued Happersett, arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment prot...
Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), was a decision issued by the United States Supreme Court clarifying the limitations of the Right to Trial by Jury.
Melvin R. Blanton was charged with Driving under the influence of alcohol. His petition for a jury trial was denied and he was instead given a bench trial. Blanton appealed, arguing that his sixth amendment right to trial by jury had been violated.
The US Supreme Court ruled that Blanton did not have the right to a jury trial because the crime he was charged with was "petty". The court went on to elaborate: "offenses for which the maximum period of incarceration is six months, or less, are presumptively petty...a defendant can overcome this, and become entitled to a jury trial,..by showing that additional penalties [such as monetary fines]...are...so severe [as to indicate] that the legislature clearly determined that the offense is a serious one."