CASE LAW 6 PAGE ESSAY PROJECT
asksunidotcom
OriginalityReportcaselaw.pdf
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 1/7
%74
%6
SafeAssign Originality Report CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool • SafeAssign Originality Report Generator I
%80Total Score: High riskRichard Munson Submission UUID: f72049c8-194e-ac38-7146-f59150698140
Total Number of Reports
1 Highest Match
80 % CASE (1).docx
Average Match
80 % Submitted on
03/19/20 10:33 PM PDT
Average Word Count
1,805 Highest: CASE (1).docx
%80Attachment 1
Institutional database (2)
Student paper Student paper
Internet (2)
bohatala nolo
Top sources (3)
Excluded sources (0)
View Originality Report - Old Design
Word Count: 1,805 CASE (1).docx
2 1
3 4
2 Student paper 3 bohatala 4 nolo
Running Head: CASE LAW 1
CASE LAW 10
Case Law
Richard Munson
Columbia Southern University
Part 1
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) Facts
The city of Chicago had to take two properties that is private land and two other disjoined areas that are located amid 18 and 19th street of Rockwell Street. Property was apparently owned by two parties the private property that was possessed of two individuals while the other one the way of collecting was owned by Chicago, Burlington and also the Quincy Railroad Corporation. Petition that was raised by the City of Chicago was that the piece of land was petitioned so that it will be
utilized by cook Country Circuit because of its own private endeavors. Chicago city had been convicted for the land as well as went ahead and gave compensation to the land rightful owners. The amount documented for that piece of land was a dollar. As a result the mail railroad created an appeal for the court resulting to an argument where the due process was maintained in the 14th amendment was ignored and not followed to the end. Irrespective of this move, supreme Illinois Court reaffirmed the initial case judgment and disregarded the case. Issue
In the case, it sought out for determination on whether the land compensation and condemnations were debased by the court when carrying out the Due
process in relation to the 14th Amendment.
Holding
The court sustained its position that its decision achieved the Due process Clause that was only applied in the duty of private possessions for its utilization of
private possessions for its utilization and for guiding amount as well as the compensation process. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.
144 (1938) Facts
1
1
2 2 3
2
2
2
4 2 3
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 2/7
In this specific case the power was bestowed from the 5th amendment that looks forward to address the issues of the individual which was different compared to that of the state. The “Filled Milk Act” control was implemented to act as caution against the milk shipment amid diverse sates in America. The country’s congress showed that any manufactured milk was joined with the non-diary flabs that were injurious to individual’s health. This renders the milk sale as the fraud for the general
public. Carolene Product Company detained its assertions that Milton product where conflict was chastely as the cause of skimmed milk assorted with coconut oil that resemblance to the condensed milk. Issues
The main issue in the case is focused on whether there is legit Congress power to give regulation on ways concerned with the commerce interstate which was
purely infringement of registered 5Th Amendment.
Holding
The Court said that the regulation was fully constitutional. Court Rule
The court regulation as found in the nation’s constitution was the fact that it was a good community for the actualized undertakings. The end analysis result
could just be controlled in the favor of concrete evidence. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) Facts
In reference to this case, Lucas was the petitioner of the case and was engaged in the purchasing of a given parcel of land that was located in the beach for
around a million dollar in the year 1986. During the process of purchase, Lucas was known to be sole owner for the properties that were found in the region known as the Beachwood East Subdivision. Not until the year 1988 where the petitioner Lucas was not allowed to follow the prospects of placing any given building in the building according to the Constitutional Act found on the South Carolina Legislature (Lucas, 2005). Issues
The main issues that were raised in this case include the concern on whether the decision that was taken by the state of South Carolina would change towards
the possessing of the state of the land along with whether the state need to issue the compensation to petitioner Lucas for getting the land back. Case holding
and analysis
The 4th and 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution show that the case has private land from a firm and that they need to receive all the
compensation. The court showed that Lucas was denied any chance to advance and improved he land in a greater position and in that case, he was deprived the economic advantage that he would have attained from the land. Lucas (2005), explain that the court was too much clearer that the landowners was like Lucas which contained the full rights to use Lucas land in the most profitable way possible. The court offered the distinct method of showing a difference amid an individual deprivation of the land economic value which was picking a complete ownership of the entire land. Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) Facts
New London City that is within the State of Connecticut ratified in the legislation that gave room for the city to take hold of the private property to also engage in
sale of other private developers. The goal initiative in the year 2000 were to facilitate the city that enable the raising the taxes to formulate the new opportunities for the area residents.
2
2
2
4 3
2
2
3
2
2 3
2
In this case, the plaintiff Kelo that possessed his home for around sixty years. Kelo property and other individual properties were marked as among the major
condemned city. An injunction was offered by the Court for all the stated properties even if the appeal court reversed the decision as well as approved state’s
property possession. The US Supreme Court later stepped in and gave the certiorari (Nicholson and Mota, 2005). Issue
The major issue in the case was on whether the intention of New London that was mostly satisfied the Civic goodwill or on whether it was a selfish method that was mainly to take other individual’s property to benefit other individuals. Rule
The 5th Amendment in the constitution show that there is no private property in the US that can be taken having no justifiable course. It is necessary to note that
the constitution 5th amendment ban the stipulate the state that consist no right on whatsoever is picking the private property citizen regardless going ahead and giving compensation (Nicholson and Mota, 2005). Decision
According to Nicholson and Motan (2005 the Connecticut Supreme Court showed that the London strategy was not just valid, but it was meant for the advantage
of all the present resident in the area. In reference to the ruling, the country’s economic advantage held upon a person is in a position to be rundown for a greater and good public utilization. The possession of this kind of land does not necessary indicate that any private entity is entirely benefiting as required.
Part 2
Case Laws
Department of Agriculture and James Company
The available Facts
Marketing in California was implemented which needed for the federal government to create a yearly percentage on the production of crops that were meant to
alleviate the supply of the farm produce to assist uplift the producers lives. The company of James was an individual private company that was generating its own products which had also established their supply chains to international market levels. The private company, did not extend the directed benefits to producers who completed with the raw agricultural materials. Issues
In this case the issue is if the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment apply diversely to the private processing organization or the dynamic of all organizations that
take the properties of private firms and utilizing them to create profits which are not expanded to the major producers. The other issue is whether the federal government has the power to instruct the private organizations utilizing their own procedures and policies without putting into consideration on what Taking Clause offers to protect the people properties.
Rule of Law
The Fifth Amendment argues that farmers in the marketing order were entitled to get some benefit form generated profit from the government sale of the farm
products which were achieved from the farers directly. The private company need to extend the directed benefits to producers who completed with the raw
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 3/7
Source Matches (45)
Student paper 81%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
bohatala 77%
agricultural materials. Judgment
The company should have paid the benefit form generated profit from the government sale of the farm products which were achieved from the farers directly. Reasoning
Judges used suit where there is lack of the federal provisions to prevent the private investors form giving out benefits to the property owner that offer them with
raw materials. Texas Water Company vs. Jacques
Facts
Texas local government is supposed to offer water to the residents of Texas. Jacques id putting efforts to be given room to utilize public water in running the greenhouse that is situated near the city. The current rules do not permit one to use the domestic water for any commercial purposes but according to Jacque the water she needs is for a domestic activity. (Epstein & Walker, 2015).
Issues
The present water supply is not enough for the entire Texas population and the board claim that no one should be allowed to use water for farming. Rule of Law
Water board has the ability to control the way the public water is utilized by the population of Texas depending on the levels of prevailing water and the climatic
conditions controlling the region. Judgment
There is no permit that should allow a person to utilize the tapped water for any kind of domestic farming not until the water Board affirms that there is as much
water that is enough for the population. Through denying this type of permits, the firm is operating on the regulatory body capacity that can be used to determine how the tapped water need to be utilized to make sure there is continued supply. “By denying such permits, the company is acting in its capacity as the
regulatory body that should determine how tapped waters should be sued to ensure continued supply at all times.” Reasoning
Consuming water is one of the basic activities and until the water is enough for such basic utilization, the water should not be used for farming.
References
Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2015). Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice (9th Ed.).
2
2
2
2
2 2
Washington DC: CQ Press. Lucas, D. (2005). Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council: 505 US 1003 (1992). Distinctive Aspects of American Law Video Project,
Duke University School of Law. Nicholson, B., & Mota, S. A. (2005). From Public Use to Public Purpose: The Supreme Court Stretches the Takings Clause in Kelo v.
City of New London. Gonz. L. Rev., 41, 81
Powell, L. F. (1982). " Carolene Products" Revisited. Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092. Shepard, R. T. (1988). Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist
Court: The Fifth Amendment and Judicial Intervention. Cath. UL Rev., 38, 847.
4 2
2
2
2 2 2
2
1
Student paper
CASE LAW 1
Original source
CASE LAW BRIEF 1
1
Student paper
Columbia Southern University
Original source
Columbia Southern University
2
Student paper
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R.
Original source
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R
2
Student paper
City of Chicago, 166 U.S.
Original source
City of Chicago, 166 U.S
3
Student paper
226 (1897) Facts The city of Chicago had to take two properties that is private land and two other disjoined areas that are located amid 18 and 19th street of Rockwell Street. Property was apparently owned by two parties the private property that was possessed of two individuals while the other one the way of collecting was owned by Chicago, Burlington and also the Quincy Railroad Corporation.
Original source
226 (1897) Facts The City of Chicago wanted to take private land and connect two disjointed sections, that is, between the 18th and the 19th street of Rockwell Street The private property was owned by different individuals as well as the right of way was owned by Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Corporation
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 4/7
Student paper 73%
Student paper 70%
Student paper 62%
Student paper 63%
nolo 100%
Student paper 100%
bohatala 84%
Student paper 73%
Student paper 70%
Student paper 64%
nolo 100%
bohatala 84%
Student paper 68%
2
Student paper
Petition that was raised by the City of Chicago was that the piece of land was petitioned so that it will be utilized by cook Country Circuit because of its own private endeavors. Chicago city had been convicted for the land as well as went ahead and gave compensation to the land rightful owners. The amount documented for that piece of land was a dollar. As a result the mail railroad created an appeal for the court resulting to an argument where the due process was maintained in the 14th amendment was ignored and not followed to the end.
Original source
According to the petition raised by the City of Chicago, this piece of land was petitioned so as to be utilized by the Cook County Circuit Court for its own private endeavors The City of Chicago had condemned the land and even went further and offered compensation for the rightful owners of the land However, the documented amount for this piece of land was only one dollar As result the railroad mail made an appeal to the court arguing that the Due Process was contained in the 14th amendment was not followed to the latter
2
Student paper
Irrespective of this move, supreme Illinois Court reaffirmed the initial case judgment and disregarded the case.
Original source
Despite this move, the Illinois Supreme Court disregarded the case and reaffirmed the earlier court judgment (Shepard, 1988)
2
Student paper
In the case, it sought out for determination on whether the land compensation and condemnations were debased by the court when carrying out the Due process in relation to the 14th Amendment.
Original source
Issue In this context, the case sought a determination as to if the land condemnation as well as the compensation was violated by the court in the course of carrying out the Due Process in respect to the 14th Amendment
2
Student paper
The court sustained its position that its decision achieved the Due process Clause that was only applied in the duty of private possessions for its utilization of private possessions for its utilization and for guiding amount as well as the compensation process.
Original source
Holding Here, the court maintained its position that the decision reached by the Due Process Clause was only applicable in the undertaking of private property for its use and could only come in for its guiding the amount and compensation process
4
Student paper
United States v.
Original source
United States v
2
Student paper
Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.
Original source
Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S
3
Student paper
144 (1938) Facts
Original source
144 (1938) Facts of the case
2
Student paper
This renders the milk sale as the fraud for the general public. Carolene Product Company detained its assertions that Milton product where conflict was chastely as the cause of skimmed milk assorted with coconut oil that resemblance to the condensed milk.
Original source
This the then renders the sale of such milk as a fraud to the general public (Powell, 1982) However, the Carolene Product Company held its claims that the “Milton” milk product under conflict was purely as a result of skimmed milk mixed with coconut oil that bore a resemblance to condensed milk
2
Student paper
The main issue in the case is focused on whether there is legit Congress power to give regulation on ways concerned with the commerce interstate which was purely infringement of registered 5Th Amendment.
Original source
Issues The major issue in this case, is to whether the Congress has the legit power to offer regulation on matters concerned with the interstate commerce or whether this was purely an infringement of the 5th Amendment (Powell, 1982)
2
Student paper
The court regulation as found in the nation’s constitution was the fact that it was a good community for the actualized undertakings.
Original source
Court Rule The regulation as contained in the constitution was that it is for the good of the community for the thus undertaking to be actualized
4
Student paper
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
Original source
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL 505 U.S
3
Student paper
1003 (1992) Facts
Original source
1003 (1992) Facts of the case
2
Student paper
In reference to this case, Lucas was the petitioner of the case and was engaged in the purchasing of a given parcel of land that was located in the beach for around a million dollar in the year 1986. During the process of purchase, Lucas was known to be sole owner for the properties that were found in the region known as the Beachwood East Subdivision.
Original source
1003 (1992) Facts According to this case, Lucas who was also the petitioner of this case had engaged in the purchase of a parcel of land located along the beach for about 1 million dollars in 1986 During this purchase, Lucas was the sole owner of the properties which were located on Beachwood East Subdivision
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 5/7
Student paper 76%
bohatala 100%
Student paper 65%
Student paper 73%
bohatala 100%
Student paper 69%
Student paper 76%
Student paper 71%
Student paper 62%
Student paper 63%
Student paper 70%
2
Student paper
The main issues that were raised in this case include the concern on whether the decision that was taken by the state of South Carolina would change towards the possessing of the state of the land along with whether the state need to issue the compensation to petitioner Lucas for getting the land back.
Original source
Issues There were two main issues raised I this case, as to whether the decision taken by the South Carolina State would translate towards the state possessing the land and whether the state should issue compensation to Lucas for possessing back the land
3
Student paper
Case holding and analysis
Original source
Case holding and analysis
2
Student paper
The 4th and 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution show that the case has private land from a firm and that they need to receive all the compensation.
Original source
Case holding and analysis The United States Constitution, the 4th and the 14th Amendments stipulate that in the case that the state possesses private land from an individual or firm, and then they ought to receive compensation (Lucas, 2005)
2
Student paper
City of New London, 125 S.
Original source
City of New London
3
Student paper
2655 (2005) Facts
Original source
2655 (2005) Facts
2
Student paper
New London City that is within the State of Connecticut ratified in the legislation that gave room for the city to take hold of the private property to also engage in sale of other private developers. The goal initiative in the year 2000 were to facilitate the city that enable the raising the taxes to formulate the new opportunities for the area residents. In this case, the plaintiff Kelo that possessed his home for around sixty years.
Original source
2655 (2005) Facts The City of New London within the Connecticut State enacted a legislation that allowed the city to not only take hold of private property but also engage in the sale of the same to other private developers The goals of this initiative in 2000 were to ensure that the city was able to raise both taxes as well as formulate new job opportunities for the residents The plaintiff in this case was Kelo who had been in possession of his home for over sixty years
2
Student paper
An injunction was offered by the Court for all the stated properties even if the appeal court reversed the decision as well as approved state’s property possession. The US Supreme Court later stepped in and gave the certiorari (Nicholson and Mota, 2005).
Original source
Fortunately the court provided an injunction of the same of all the stated properties although the court of appeal reversed this decision and approved of the state possessing of the property Later on the US Supreme Court stepped in and offered the certiorari (Nicholson and Mota, 2005)
2
Student paper
The 5th Amendment in the constitution show that there is no private property in the US that can be taken having no justifiable course. It is necessary to note that the constitution 5th amendment ban the stipulate the state that consist no right on whatsoever is picking the private property citizen regardless going ahead and giving compensation (Nicholson and Mota, 2005).
Original source
Rule According to the 5th amendment, the constitution stipulates that no private property within the US can be taken without a justifiable course Important to note is that the 5th amendment ban further stipulates that the state has no right whatsoever in taking the property of private citizens despite even going ahead and offering compensation (Nicholson and Mota, 2005)
2
Student paper
According to Nicholson and Motan (2005 the Connecticut Supreme Court showed that the London strategy was not just valid, but it was meant for the advantage of all the present resident in the area.
Original source
Decision Nicholson and Motan (2005) indicated that the Connecticut Supreme Court declared that the New London’s plan was not only valid but also was meant for the benefits of all the residents
2
Student paper
The possession of this kind of land does not necessary indicate that any private entity is entirely benefiting as required.
Original source
As such, the possession of such land is not an indication of any private entity benefiting
2
Student paper
Marketing in California was implemented which needed for the federal government to create a yearly percentage on the production of crops that were meant to alleviate the supply of the farm produce to assist uplift the producers lives. The company of James was an individual private company that was generating its own products which had also established their supply chains to international market levels. The private company, did not extend the directed benefits to producers who completed with the raw agricultural materials.
Original source
Case Laws Department of Agriculture and James Company The available Facts In California, a marketing order was introduced which required the federal government to come up with a yearly production percentage for crops which was meant to stabilize the supply of farm produce to help uplift the lives of producers James Company was a private firm that was processing its own products and had established its own supply chains to international markets This being a private company, it did not extend the indicated benefits to the producers who supplied it with raw agricultural materials
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 6/7
Student paper 67%
Student paper 68%
Student paper 82%
Student paper 64%
Student paper 73%
Student paper 98%
Student paper 87%
Student paper 100%
nolo 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 75%
Student paper 100%
2
Student paper
In this case the issue is if the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment apply diversely to the private processing organization or the dynamic of all organizations that take the properties of private firms and utilizing them to create profits which are not expanded to the major producers. The other issue is whether the federal government has the power to instruct the private organizations utilizing their own procedures and policies without putting into consideration on what Taking Clause offers to protect the people properties.
Original source
Issues Does the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment apply differently to private processing firms or it is dynamic to all firms that take private properties and using them to make profits that are not extended to the main producers Can the federal government have the powers to instruct that private firms to operate using their own policies without taking into consideration what the Takings Clause provides to protect the properties of other people
2
Student paper
The Fifth Amendment argues that farmers in the marketing order were entitled to get some benefit form generated profit from the government sale of the farm products which were achieved from the farers directly. The private company need to extend the directed benefits to producers who completed with the raw agricultural materials.
Original source
In this marketing order, farmers were entitled to some benefits from the profits generated by the government from the sale of farm products that came directly from the farmers This being a private company, it did not extend the indicated benefits to the producers who supplied it with raw agricultural materials
2
Student paper
Judges used suit where there is lack of the federal provisions to prevent the private investors form giving out benefits to the property owner that offer them with raw materials. Texas Water Company vs.
Original source
Reasoning According to the judges used in this suit, there lack federal provisions to prohibit the private investors from paying benefits to property owners who supply them with raw materials they use in their production processes Texas Water Company vs
2
Student paper
Water board has the ability to control the way the public water is utilized by the population of Texas depending on the levels of prevailing water and the climatic conditions controlling the region.
Original source
Rule of Law The water board has the mandate to determine the manner in which public water should be used by members of the public depending on the prevailing water levels and the climatic conditions affecting the region
2
Student paper
There is no permit that should allow a person to utilize the tapped water for any kind of domestic farming not until the water Board affirms that there is as much water that is enough for the population.
Original source
Judgment No permit should allow a person to use tapped water for domestic farming until the Water Board confirms that there is enough water to supply the entire population
2
Student paper
“By denying such permits, the company is acting in its capacity as the regulatory body that should determine how tapped waters should be sued to ensure continued supply at all times.” Reasoning
Original source
By denying such permits, the company is acting in its capacity as the regulatory body that should determine how tapped waters should be sued to ensure continued supply at all times
2
Student paper
Epstein, L., & Walker, T.
Original source
References Epstein, L., & Walker, T
2
Student paper
Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice (9th Ed.).
Original source
Constitutional law for a changing America Rights, liberties, and justice (9th Ed.)
4
Student paper
South Carolina Coastal Council:
Original source
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
2
Student paper
505 US 1003 (1992). Distinctive Aspects of American Law Video Project, Duke University School of Law. Nicholson, B., & Mota, S.
Original source
505 US 1003 (1992) Distinctive Aspects of American Law Video Project, Duke University School of Law Nicholson, B., & Mota, S
2
Student paper
From Public Use to Public Purpose: The Supreme Court Stretches the Takings Clause in Kelo v. City of New London.
Original source
From Public Use to Public Purpose The Supreme Court Stretches the Takings Clause in Kelo v City of New London
2
Student paper
Rev., 41, 81
Original source
Rev., 41, 81 Powell, L
2
Student paper
Carolene Products"
Original source
Carolene Products"
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 7/7
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%2
Student paper
Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092.
Original source
Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092
2
Student paper
Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist Court: The Fifth Amendment and Judicial Intervention.
Original source
Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist Court The Fifth Amendment and Judicial Intervention
2
Student paper
UL Rev., 38, 847.
Original source
UL Rev., 38, 847
