Seven Defining American Court Cases

NEWS NE S NEWS CASES THAT DEFINE AMERICA lasocus mauris Ph Dogec lacinia fer ipsumi au LAW Susvariu Fuso at se vestibulum movlestie an nonummy hendrerit s porta. Fusce suscipit tellusi denon edrat m. Donec ine velit vel mes pulvisenar. Praesent vestiume m lacus invelivel ip Lorem ipsum do tetuer suscipit a cugiate malesada odio une odio, gravida Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consec tetuer adipiscing awens elit. Pracsen BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA This class action suit put in question the legality of "separate but equal" schools, a concept that was put forth in 1896 ag with the Plessy v. a Ferguson decision, which permitted segregation. RACE MIXING STOP RESPONSE: OUTCOME: The class action, a consolidation of five similar cases in four states, was eventually filed on behalf of Oliver Brown, the father of a child who was prevented from enrolling in a whites- only school in Topeka, Kansas. In 1954, The Court, agreed unani- mously with Brown, that gated school system in Topeka vio- lated the Equal Protection Clause of segre- the stitution because the black and while rteenth amendment the con- schools were not and never could be equal to each other. THE STATE OF TENNESSEE VS. JOHN THOMAS SCOPES The constitutionality of the Butler Act, a 1925 Tennessee law making it illegal to teach the theory of evolution instead of the teachings from the Bible, was chal- lenged in this class action suit. RESPONSE: OUTCOME: After the Butler Act was passed, John Thomas Scopes began teaching evolu- tion in a Tennessee classroom. He was The Butler Act was repealed in Ten- nessee in 1967 and nationally in 1968, indicted and the trial began later that year. However, the ability to teach evolution theory is still challenging. In 1999, the State Board of Education in Kansas removed evolution from it's teaching standards and textbooks. ROE VS. WADE An 1851 Texas statute criminalized abortion unless the life of the mother was in danger. 1973 EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A BIRTHDAY RESPONSE: Norma Harvey, (aka "Roe"), wanted to end her pregnancy but could not afford to travel to one of the other U.S. states OUTCOME: that had already legalized abortion. Three civil action lawsuits from differ- The 1973 Supreme Court decision made abortion legal until the end of the first three months of pregnancy. ent states that were all being argued at the same time were consolidated into the Roe Vs Wade suit. LOIS E. JENSON VS. EVELETH TACONITE CO. Lois Jenson and 14 other female mineworkers were victims of extreme physical harassment and intimidation at the hands of some of their male coworkers and supervisors at Taconite's. EVTAC mine in Eveleth, Minnesota in the late 80s. RESPONSE: In 1988, the women filed the first sexual harassment class action lawsuit in U.S. history. COMPANY POLICIES OUTCOME: MANUAL The outcome of the case not only changed state and federal laws protect- ing workers but also set precedence for more class actions demanding an Employee Conduct end to harassment and discrimination on the job. THE STATE VS. CASEY ANTHONY After several months of searching for Casey's missing daughter Caylee, her body was found de- composing in the woods near Casey's home. It was suspected that Casey murdered her daughter. RESPONSE: Many were shocked to learn how long Casey had waited to tell authorities about her missing daughter. MISSING OUTCOME: Casey Anthony was found not guilty for the murder of her daughter. Shortly afterward, a new proposed law, "Caylee's Law" was written, which would make it a crime to not report a missing child. CRIME SCENE THE STATE VS. GEORGE ZIMMERMAN On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed 17 year old Trayvon Martin. The shooting sparked lots of controversy as some people believed George was profiling Martin, RESPONSE: Some of the public was shocked at the Stand Your Ground Laws and asked for it to be repealed. OUTCOME: George Zimmerman was found not guilty and the Stand Your Ground Laws are still in effect. HOLLINGSWORTH VS. PERRY This case was filed on behalf of two same-sex couples in May 2009, asking for a preliminary order blocking Prop 8, a proposition created by opponents of same-sex marriage. WE ALL DESERVE THE FREEDOM TO MARRY 1 THE AAR WE ALL FREEDOM ESERVE WE ALL DESERVE Th WE ALL FREEIERVE TO MA E TO MARRY THE EED Marriage RESPONSE: OUTCOME: In June of 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that proponents of Prop 8 had no right to appeal the district court ruling and the freedom for same-sex marriage resumed in California. When California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown declined to defend Prop 8 in court, Judge Vaughn R. Walker allowed the initiative's proponents to enter the case to defend it. BACHUS & SCHANKER, LLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.coloradolaw.net SOURCES http://www.iveyengineering com/blogelassaction-lawsaits-2sthash wIUNMhPB dpuf hittp://www.lambdalegal orpin-courtoasespeny schwarzenegger http:/articles philly.oom/2011-02-07/news/27105577 1 teaching-evolution-creationism-science-classes tpwww.d