Module 2 Case Analysis

Name : Michael Young

Course: Introduction to Law and the Legal System
Module 2 Case Analysis
Professor Darian Wanger
Date: 24th January, 2016

Module 2 Case Analysis

1. Brian Short v. State of Florida

Main Issue
The main issue of this case is whether the State of Florida violated the law of equality by enforcing
the rule that two short persons cannot marry each other. Was it unconstitutional on the part of State
of Florida to intrude into someones personal space.

Relevant legal concepts

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to strike down
legislation that was enacted for the purpose of discriminating against certain groups of
people [CITATION Fra09 \p 53 \l 1033 ]

Relevant case law

This is the case of denying fundamental freedom by enforcing such a law that is against the people's
will. Chief Justice Earl Warren's was quoted saying in the case of Loving v. Virginia that Marriage
is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny
this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in
these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the
Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process
of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be
restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or
not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the
State. [ CITATION Lov13 \l 1033 ] The Supreme Court had also stated that the statue had
deprived the Lovings of equal protection because Virginia prohibited only interracial marriages
involving white persons and because there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose
independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.

Module 2 Case Analysis

[CITATION Fra09 \p 53 \l 1033 ]

Rationale

People have the right to choose their partner irrespective of any kind of discrimination. The State of
Florida here, is trying to intrude into people's privacy by enforcing the law which is unconstitutional
under equality act. The constitution of United States prohibits any kind of inequality or
discrimination but State of Florida thinks otherwise by not allowing two short people to marry.

Ruling

I find State of Florida guilty for depriving Brian and Jennifer to marry each other because of the
height issue. Brian is to win this case, because it is unconstitutional to deprive someone of
something on the basis of discrimination. The Constitution is supreme and therefore such a law will
be declared null and void.

Module 2 Case Analysis

2. Michael v. University

Main Issue

The main issue of the case is, whether the University had the right to expel Michael without any
formal investigation done.Michael had the right to fair hearing. Whether Dr. Pickett was right to
dismiss Michael from the class, instead of having a reasoning from Michael of his actions of Head
Rotation.

Relevant legal concept

Private Universities do not have to adhere to due process. Private schools have considerably
more procedural latitude than public schools. [CITATION Fra09 \p 43 \l 1033 ]

Relevant Case Law

Here, we can look at Saint Leo's code of conduct which clearly states that It is the responsibility of
every member of the faculty and student body to cooperate in supporting the honor system. Any
member of the University community suspecting an Academic Honor Code violation should
immediately refer the matter directly to the faculty member teaching the course in which the
possible violation took place. For any suspected violation that occurs within a course, the faculty
member must discuss the evidence in private with the student and tell the student to continue in the
class. If, during the course of an Academic Honor Code violation investigation, the committee
determines that other violations of the Academic Honor Code have potentially occurred, the
committee may pursue investigating the new violations().

Module 2 Case Analysis

Rationale

The University itself is violating its own code, by not allowing Michael to have a formal
investigation. There is a much difference between what one sees and what one does. It would have
been better if the moderator would have talked to Michael first, gave him warning, allow him to
take the exam, complain this action to the senior and launch a formal investigation. This way things
could have been handled in a better way.

Ruling
I think that Michael will be proved not guilty here because he was not given a fair hearing and
without any notice he was rusticated. Michael has all the right to sue the university on the premise
of not having formal investigation.

Module 2 Case Analysis

3. Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift

Main Issue

The main issue of the case is whether Taylor Lautner would be able to sue Taylor Swift foe half the
money she had made while they were in a relationship.

Relevant legal concept

In Suggs vs Norris case, the courts didnt find the plaintiffs work free of charge and was not found
to be done gratuitously. The verdict was denied. Suggs won because she had sufficient evidence that
there was an implied contract because even though they werent married they had an understanding
that she would be remunerated for her services.

Relevant case law

Contract Law which states for a contract to be legally enforceable three things must first happen
offer, acceptance, and consideration.[CITATION Fra09 \p 54 \l 1033 ]

Rationale

Module 2 Case Analysis

Marriage is generally defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all the rest as
defined in the case of Hyde v. Wrench. In this particular case study, there was no presumption of
marriage. Moreover there was no written contract, both Swift and Lautner paid their bills separately
and split the rent into half.

Ruling

In my opinion, Swift is going to win this case because there was no marriage and as a result there
was no marital property. Thus Lautner cannot purport to sue Swift for marital property because
there was none in the first place.

Module 2 Case Analysis

References

Leo, S. (n.d.). Academic Honor Code. Retrieved from Saintleo.edu:

http://www.saintleo.edu/resources/for-online-students/academic-services/advising/academichonor-code.aspx

Schubert, F. (2009). Introduction to law (custom). (9th ed.).

My opinion on Suggs VS Norris Case of 1988, 2013, http://mariahchristian10.blogspot.in/