11th Circuit Court Case Analysis

In this paper, I will explore the case of 10th Circuit: Employee Fresh out of Drug Rehab Not Protected by ADA Safe Harbor (Harrison & Wager, 2011) and discuss the following questions; The longer an individual refrains from drug use, is it more likely he or she will qualify for ADA protection? In close cases, an employee would be well-advises to consult with and obtain opinions from qualified professionals. Who are some of these professionals? Did the court follow the definition of the ADAA when it stated, “an individual is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” if the drug use was sufficiently recent to justify the employer’s reasonable belief that the drug abuse remained an ongoing problem”? Why or why not? And based upon you

Since insurance companies are required to provide care, it makes sense to buy insurance only when you need it. In other words, wait until you get sick to buy insurance, because they cannot turn you down. In order to combat this, the law includes an individual mandate, which requires anyone that can afford it to buy health insurance, or pay a penalty to the IRS. In essence, this is the part of the law that pays for it all. This is also the section many Republicans hate. In their philosophy, the government cannot force someone to buy something they may or may not need. They argued that this law was unconstitutional, and they sued in federal court to have the law nullified. There were three cases overall: one from the states (Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.), one from the federal government (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. v. Florida), and one from the National Federation of Independent Business (Nat'l Fed. of Independent Bus. v. Sebelius). Due to conflicting rulings from the lower courts in

“The fundamental market failure that Congress sought to fix was this cost-shifting from the uninsured to the privately insured.” (Fisher) It is clear to see that Obamacare did not fix the cost-shifting it was implemented to fix. There are still free health insurance options where the government is responsible for so many American’s healthcare costs, and when it comes down to it, the premiums for individuals with private insurance have still continuously went up over the years since the Affordable Care Act was passed. In 2012, Daniel Fisher wrote, “Existing federal laws already cover the poor, the elderly, and the roughly 60% of Americans who get their insurance through employers. Those laws provide free and low-cost care to just about anyone who needs it.” (Fisher) If this is the case, what purpose does requiring everyone to have insurance serve? It does not change the financial state of the country and only minutely impacts each individual’s quality of

A few important points, Parks (2011) found that, “As of 2013, there are approximately 44 million Americans that are not able to afford the costs of health insurance” and Epperly (2012) found that, “In 2014, six in ten Americans without health insurance could get coverage for $100 or less a month”. Now I am very open to the fact that ObamaCare has its many flaws that can negatively impact others, therefore I do not want to take this opportunity to force my opinion on others. It is important to know how much the health care system has been greatly affected by ObamaCare and to share the benefits, know the rights and protection of the people that ObamaCare also has to offer.

Texas consists of three branches of government; the executive, legislative, and judicial branch. Texas’ government is modeled very similarly to The United States’ three branches. Specifically within the judicial branch, there is a Supreme Court, which is the highest federal court of The United States [National]. There is also a Supreme Court in Texas; which is the highest court in the state. A 5-4 decision by The United States Supreme Court on June 26th, 2015 ended all state bans on same-sex marriage and requires all fifty states to recognize marriages legally performed in other states. Immediately after this historic decision was made, in disobedience of the Supreme Court, Texas’ attorney general said, “that county clerks can refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they object on religious grounds.” This was Texas’ initial reaction to the ruling. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a presidential contender, said he was "disappointed" with the ruling and "as president, I would appoint strict constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written."

One must not forget that access to health is a right set by universal standards. The right to health care is one of many human rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Jacobsen, 2014). Perhaps this is the concept that does not sit well for many Americans who feel that individuals in need must focus on finding coverage on their own, and not take help from the government. On the other hand, the argument must not stand on just a few circumstances, one must not view the obvious health care issues on a personal level. One must focus on the issues as a whole, the country can clearly see that the old way of managing the health care system is not working, this means the nation must move on to different tactics. That’s exactly what the Law does, it is time for

Caldwell presents three allegations of error. Caldwell contends that the circuit court erred by denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial when State’s witnesses discussed evidence that had been suppressed. Additionally, Caldwell asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Finally, Caldwell alleges that the imposition of two convictions and sentences for conspiracy violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The State contends that the circuit court did not err in denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial, and that his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved. The State, however, agrees that it was improper for

Sonia Sotomayer: Florida was violating the 6th amendment in sentencing people to death. Although, with each state having different rules about the death penalty, the majority supreme court decision was that Florida was acting in unconstitutional ways and that both a jury and a judge should have the final say in whether or not to send people to death.

The appeal at bar challenges significant legal errors committed by the district court when it erroneously create a new category of law, and misinterpreted federal law to such an extent that it would impose significant burdens upon school districts nationwide if allowed to stand, and incorrectly applied statutory law resulting in an inaccurate finding that the Appellant did not comply with its obligations under the IDEA. The district court’s findings that K.W. is not a parentally-placed private school student and the district courts creation of a new category of private school placement for students with disabilities under the IDEA was inappropriate. In this case, Parent made clear that she did not intend to enroll K.W. in the public school system due to her preference that K.W. attend a private school. In reviewing the district court’s decision, the court erroneously determined that K.W. was not a parentally-placed private school student. This Court has been asked to establish that K.W. was a parentally-placed private school student as defined by 34 C.F.R. § 300.130.

This landmark supreme court cases and the constitution focuses on a case involving expressive conduct and what is for many a deeply cherished symbol of America- The U.S. flag. In a closely divided (5-4) ruling, the Supreme Court held that the states could not forbid burning the U.S. flag in protest because doing so would violate the freedom of speech protected by the first

The Eleventh Circuit found that the Commission’s selection process in 2003-2004 “categorically excluded” certain faiths from the list of potential invocational speakers for meetings of the planning commission. Id. at 1282. In addition, the court found that the Commission’s selection of invocational speakers was not based on an impermissible motive because it included diverse religious institutions. Id. at 1278 ( citing Marsh 463 U.S. at 793-94).

Federal courts generally reference what the Kansas courts describe as a “cognizable legal prejudice” as the loss of a “substantial right” due to the dismissal. Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001). The Tenth Circuit has recognized four main factors when determining whether a legal prejudice exists: “the opposing party's effort and expense in preparing for trial; excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the movant; insufficient explanation of the need for a dismissal; and the present stage of litigation.” Brown v. Baeke, 413 F.3d 1121, 1124 (10th Cir. 2005).

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Article III of the U.S. Constitution authorized the Supreme Court. The U.S. also has a system of separated powers with three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch. Since the death of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, there has been a debate on who should appoint the next justice, the current president, President Obama or the next president. According to the Constitution if a position in the Supreme Court was to become vacant, the constitution states the president, “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.” The confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice is a solemn responsibility that the President and the Senate share under the U.S. Constitution. Due to enumerated powers, President Obama should be able to nominate or appoint a supreme justice because it is his responsibility to do so.

I have chosen to write my research paper on the late Justice Antonin Scalia. I wanted to know more about his legal philosophy of “originalism” and the legacy he left. I wanted to read on some of his landmark case rulings. I focused on one to include in my research paper. My thesis statement is as follows:

Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century the United States has always had a realization that there was a problem with obtaining affordable health insurance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) also known as Obamacare, was signed into law in March 2010. This law enables people who were unable to afford healthcare the ability to obtain a healthcare plan at an affordable rate. In 2009 a survey was taken as to the amount of people in the United States that carried health insurance. In table one below you can see over 50 million people in the United States did not have any type of insurance, which is close to 17 percent of the population (see table 1 below). “According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “32%