Supreme Court Cases Four Different

¶ … Supreme Court Cases

Four Different Supreme Cases

The first case involves Hardt and Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. Hardt stopped working due to medical problems and thenceforth she chose to file a case against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company inorder to demand for her long-term disability benefits. This is because she alleged that the company had abused the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of the year 1974 by unlawfully rejecting to pay her benefits claim. The insurance company refused to pay Hardt her benefits since she had acted on incomplete medical information. The Supreme Court asked Reliance Standard life Assurance Company why it had not remitted Hardt benefits as required by law. By asking this question, it is trying to find out the possible reasons as to why the company did not act. The District Court suggested that benefits remittance refutation was not based on considerable proof and convincing evidence in the record that Hardt was absolutely disabled. The court thus ordered the company to take action on Hardt's application and gave it 30 days ultimatum. The company did as ordered. Hardt subsequently challenged the company in the court and filed a fee-shifting statute. This statute stipulates that the court in its judgment may permit a realistic attorney's charge and costs to whichever party. In its' ruling, the district court stated that Hardt had achieved the necessary prevailing party status.

The second case involves a convict, Marcus who was convicted of participating in forced work and sex trafficking between January of the year1999 and October of the year 2001. He is challenging the sentence he received since the offense he committed was not legalized till October of the year 2000. Thus, he asserted the condemnation and proof allowed at trial permitted a jury to sentence him in jail solely on the basis of pre-ratified behavior in infringement of the ex post facto clause. He accepted that he had not raised this protestation in the district court. Furthermore, he disputed that since the constitutional fault was plain, then his conviction should be reserved. The court in its ruling observed that there was a fault. Secondly, the fault was apparent. Thirdly, the fault impinged on the appellant's considerable rights. Lastly, the fault critically affects the equality, honesty, or public status of judicial procedures.

The third case involves O'Brien and Burgess and the government. O'Brien and Burgess were armed during an attempted robbery. Count three of their condemnation charged them with using a weapon so as to commit a robbery with violence offence, which carries at least compulsory five-year jail term. The count four states using a machinegun to commit crime carries a thirty year compulsory minimum term. The government thenceforth challenged and disapproved the fourth count on the arguing that it could not set up the count beyond a realistic doubt. However it lamented that machinegun provision was a sentencing augmentation to be decided by the District Court upon a sentencing on count three. Subsequently, the court disapproaved count four. Further, it discarded the government's sentencing-augmentation position. O'Brien conceded that he had committed the crime and was sentenced to a one hundred and two-month jail term. Burgess too conceded and was sentenced to an eighty four-month jail term. Basically, the 1998 adjustment split what was once a long major sentence into distinct subparagraphs. Therefore, the Court's noted that Congress inserted the words 'uses or carries a firearm' and the word 'machinegun' in a single sentence. The sentence was not separated into subsections and thus it does not hold true.