Court Decisions

Court Decisions

[Author Name(s), First M. Last, Omit Titles and Degrees]

[Institutional Affiliation(s)]

Court Decisions

The United States of America is the federation of fifty federating units. Around the world, the US federation is known for its simple and harmonious mechanism to rule different nations residing in its territory. A supreme court is a vital attribute of any federation to deal with the constitutional dilemmas of the country ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"2Gf521MD","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Tarr & Porter, 1988)","plainCitation":"(Tarr & Porter, 1988)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":646,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/ZD9MNZ2P/items/WTVWHPG6"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/ZD9MNZ2P/items/WTVWHPG6"],"itemData":{"id":646,"type":"book","title":"State supreme courts in state and nation","publisher":"Yale University Press New Haven","source":"Google Scholar","author":[{"family":"Tarr","given":"George Alan"},{"family":"Porter","given":"Mary Cornelia"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1988"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Tarr & Porter, 1988). However, the judicial system of the USA is of the kind that states have their own constitutions and autonomy in judicial affairs. As a result, judicial battles in the states are first resolved in their own state courts and they are resolved in the apex federal court of the United States of America.

Tennessee v. Garner

The Tennessee v. Graner is the civil verdict which was decided under the provisions of the fourth amendment. The brief facts of this civil case are that there was law enforcement official such as officer Hymon and a burglar Garner. The burglar was a teenager of around sixteen and eighteen years. The officer Hymon shot the boy when he tried to climb a wall to escape from the crime scene. However, the police officer followed directions of Tennessee state law that unnecessary force is justified in the process of arresting criminals. As a result, the teenager boy was dead and upon it was found that he was unarmed. Moreover, the sum he stole was paltry value as well.

The father of the burglar filed a case against this unnecessary use of force by police officials and against the mayor of the state as well. The state court did not penalize the official, nor the United States District Court when the appeal was lodged against this decision. At last, the appeal was filed in the Supreme court of the United States of America where it was decided that this course of action by the law enforcement official is unwarranted and unreasonable in nature. it decided that for the unarmed suspect, this seizure is not appropriate in nature. The official can use this force only when the official suspect that the criminal poses great risks to other fellows in society.

State v. Holmes

This is the civil case of Christopher Kneflin as plaintiff and Dan Wong, for the defendant. Here Holmes, the defendant, was alleged of behaving irresponsibly and recklessly. His reckless attitude was taken as the violation of protection order. Some Children were left under his custody, but he had to consider the unexpected lice in one of the children. He took the opportune action at that time but was apprehended in violating the law.

Holmes state he took the action under the doctrine of necessity as this was not a planned event. He stayed away from the children. However, the court decided that affirmative doctrine of necessity was not satisfied in this case. Holmes defied his responsibility under the law and, therefore, is guilty in this case.

Analysis

The compare and contrast analysis of both cases suggest that states laws are often in a clash with the federal laws. In Tennessee v Garner case, the state laws of Tennessee clashed with the constitution of the United States of law. Whereas, in the Holmes V State case, the doctrine of necessity had different requirements. Nevertheless, in both cases, it is witnessed that federal laws have superiority over state laws. In addition, both federal and state courts have to take precedents in the account as well as the court considered Columbus v. Spingola (2001) to decide the original conditions of the doctrine of necessity.

Opinion Analysis

In this way, both cases originated from the state courts. These cases finally decided when appeals were filed and ambiguities were resolved. Such judicial verdicts provide useful insight in understanding the complex nature of law. Both cases were decided as per the real directives and pieces of evidence, so the given verdicts are purely legitimate in their nature and substance.

References:

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Tarr, G. A., & Porter, M. C. (1988). State supreme courts in state and nation. Yale University Press New Haven.