Brian Short v. State of Florida
The Main Issue
Is the “Maintaining the size of our children law” in the State of Florida is unconstitutional considering the imposed marriage prohibition on the basis of height?
Relevant Legal Concepts
Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, no state shall enforce any law that would abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state law should deprive any individuals of their liberty, life, property, denied jurisdiction of equal protection of the law and without due process (Schubert, 2008, p. 24).
Civil rights is a basic proponent of the Constitution stipulating that personal liberties belong to every individuals inherent of his or her citizenship or residence status in a particular region. Furthermore, the guarantees of the Bill of Rights cannot be abridged by any state as mandated by the Constitution.
Relevant Case Law
Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down the prevailing ban on interracial marriage in Virginia on the grounds that liberty as constituted by the basic proponents of civil rights provides the American citizen with the essential freedom for the pursuit of happiness. Further, upholds that the state’s statutory scheme to prevent marriage on the basis of racial background is a violation of the equal protection afforded from the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rationale
The Constitution mandates that no law by any state should abridge the basic civil rights of any citizen on the subject of freedom including marriage, the prevailing law imposed by the State of Florida shall not be used to deny Brian and Jennifer of their right to marry.
Ruling
As a result of the decision, Brian and Jennifer should be allowed by the State of Florida to be married
Michael v. University
The Main Issue
Is the university’s decision to dismiss Michael without due process from the school for the alleged cheating unconstitutional?
Relevant Legal Concepts
Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, no state shall enforce any law that would abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state law should deprive any individuals of their liberty, life, property, denied jurisdiction of equal protection of the law and without due process (Schubert, 2008, p. 24). By definition, Due Process is a fundamental civil right of an individual to be heard in a legal proceeding, which the Constitution guarantees as part of the Fifth and 14th Amendment
Relevant Case Law
In Goldberg v. Regents of the University of California (1967), the students participated in a manner of rallies in which verbally obscene signs was displayed on campus. The students was arrested and charged with violation of obscenity statutes and disturbance of peace. The regents’ board decided on the case and issued a decision to dismiss the students involved. However, it was held that procedural due process is necessary and the students upon admission to the university are also entitled to their Constitutional rights for due process.
Rationale
Ruling
The Constitutional rights of the student were abridged by the university in the manner of sanctioning a dismissal without due process. Hence, the university’s decision should be overturned and reinstate Michael without penalties.
Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift
The Main Issue
Is Mr. Lautner entitled to Ms. Swift’s earnings as a shared estate during the time they were still cohabitating together?
Relevant Legal Concepts
Cohabitation and domestic partnership is a term that applies to couples living together outside of marriage, but does not have a legal recognition or legal validity. Although the 14th Amendment itself provides freedom to individuals of their life and property such as the right to live together regarded as common-law, the subject of entitlement to financial claims by the former partner to another is not supported by any legal grounds, which vary in every state (Schubert, 2008, p. 113). Unless the couple entered into a cohabitation agreement or contract, the state level legislation and Court determines the legal proponents of shared properties between cohabitating couples.
Relevant Case Law
In the case of Marvin v. Marvin (1976) Michelle Triola sued her partner for a large sum after the relationship with actor Lee Marvin ended. The cohabitation agreement between the two parties provides that former who left her career to be a fulltime homemaker will be entitled to half of the latter’s income. However, the Supreme Court found it difficult to substantiate the plaintiff’s claim regarding the agreement that entitles her for a financial share of the defendant’s income. Since, the agreement was only made verbally and no written contract to enforce, the California Supreme Court found no basis of awarding the plaintiff with her claim for financial share of the defendant’s earnings.
Rationale
In relation to the case of Mr. Lautner, the former cohabitation with Ms. Swift does not hold any legal ground for his claims of the latter’s earnings for the reason that the common law does not provide unmarried couples with the same context of shared ownership of assets as married couples. Unless the two parties entered upon an enforceable contract during the time when they are still cohabitating stipulating an agreement on shared ownership of assets, Mr. Lautner cannot claim for his share of Ms. Taylor’s earnings.
Ruling
References
Goldberg v. Regents of the University of California, 57 Cal. Rptr. 463 (1967).
Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967).
Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P. 2nd 106 (Supreme Court 1976).
Schubert, F. (2008). Introduction to law and the legal system (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
http://college.cengage.com/polisci/schubert/law_legal_process/8e/students/overview/index.html
