You are to select one of the Supreme Court cases and make a Brief on it. A former student's Brief is included as a sample Brief for you to follow. Please follow the format of this Brief when composing your assignment.

Supreme Court Case: gregg v. Georgia

DO NOT USE AI CHAT GPT!!!!!!!!

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS EXACT FORMAT BELOW. TYIA

Autosave D () = B 5 - B Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode Saved to my Mac v QP Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Q Tell me () Comments fEditing v 28 Oy - o A ' v TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDE: | AaBbCcDAE: AaBbCeD , | \\Q/ f @7 &W Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request = Pane and share link Signatures Paste -~ BARE U v &5 x, X 2 v A~ 0 Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470. L KELOetal v. CITY OF NEW LONDON etal, II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) 1. FACTS: The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal. IV. LEGAL ISSUES: Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads \"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic development a \"public use\" under the Fifth Amendment? V. COURT DECISION: In a5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in majority with Justices O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. VI. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT: (by Justice Stevens) The majority opinion and decision of the court was delivered by Justice Stevens. The majority opinion was primarily based on two previous court rulings, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Berman v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). In both cases the local government took property through emminent domain and redistributed it to private entitites for development and urban renewal. The majority opinion held that the New London land in question is part of a \"carefully considered\" development plan. The opinion conceded that, \"The sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation.\" However, because the taking is part of a development plan and not just an arbitrary re-distribution of property, this Page 10of 3 1566 words [J# English (United States) 3 Focus - c t 126% g\\l Iji! Il AutoSave O A . CG PAD ... Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode - Saved to my Mac Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Comments Editing Share Times New... v 11 ~ A A Aav A EVENEV 24 T AaBbCcD AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDdE Aa BbCCD Paste BIUvab X X ADVA v Heading 4 Norma No Spacing Heading Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request pane and share link Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates The majority opinion held that the New London land in question is part of a "carefully considered" development plan. The opinion conceded that, "The sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation." However, because the taking is part of a development plan and not just an arbitrary re-distribution of property, this makes it acceptable. The lower courts had found that there was no evidence of illegitimate purpose in this case, that the taking of the property was not for the sole benefit of one person. And while the land is no freely accessible to all, the New London project sufficiently satisfies the "public use" requirement of the emminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment. The duty of the court is to determine if the "public use" requirement is being met. The majority quoted Justice Douglas in the Berman v. Parker case, stating, 'We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive." The duty of the court is not to look at each individual building, but at the project as a whole and determine if it meets the "public use" guideline. Individual property is the concern of the local legislature which is in a better position to review each property and its relation to the project as a whole. N VII. CONCURRING OPINION (delivered by Justice Kennedy) Justice Kennedy called for a rational-basis review eminent domain cases to determine if one particular. party will benefit greatly over others. Such a review was outlined in both the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. However, in the New London case, the majority of the parties were unknown and no one party could unfairly benefit from the transaction. Pfizer was not benefitting from the development as the project was already conceived and being executed when Pfizer expressed an interest in locating there. The land transfers were part of a comprehensive plan that was already in the works, and no one group was favored in the transaction. VIII. DISSENTING OPINION (delivered by Justice O'Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia) Justice O'Connor gave a very strong dissent. Referring to the words of Justice Chase in 1798 who wrote: " An call it lower) a Page 1 of 3 1566 words x English (United States) Focus E + 126%AutoSave () @ @ F) 8 - - Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470 - Compatibility Mode Saved to my Mac v Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat Q Tell me o > Y iEl TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDAE: | AaBbCDAE AaBbCCD , | Paste BER U x 2v Av Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles Y iEl TimesNew.. v 11 v A" A" Aav Ao AaBbCcD | AaBbCeDAE: | AaBbCDAE AaBbCCD , | Paste BER U x 2v Av Heading 4 Normal No Spacing Heading 1 Styles Decades> 1970-1979> 1975> Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia Case Media Docket: 74-6257 Oral Argument Citation: 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Opinion Announcement Petitioner: Gregg Written Opinion Respondent: Georgia Abstract Advocates Ora Wednesday, March 31, 1976 Robert H. (Argued the cause for the United Argument: Bork States as amicus curiae) Decision: Friday, July 2, 1976 G. Thomas (Argued the cause for the Issues: Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Davis respondent) Punishment, Death Penalty G. Hughel (By appointment of the Court, Categories: capital punishment, criminal, cruel and unusual Harrison argued the cause for the punishment, eighth amendment petitioner) Facts of the Case A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence except as to its imposition for the robbery conviction. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, claiming that his capital sentence was a "cruel and unusual" punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases" along with Jurek v. Texas, Roberts v. Louisiana, Proffitt v. Florida, and Woodson v. North Carolina. Question Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? Page 1 of 2 456 words English (United States) Focus E + 126%Autosave D () Home Insert Draw ay A ' Lo Arial Paste \\5{ e - Design Layout References ve v AN B I Uva x, X Av v A~ Review Mailings View 2) OYEZ - Gregg v_ Georgia Saved v Acrobat Q Tell me T AaBbCcDdE: AaBbCcDdE Normal No Spacing 0 Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Page 1of 2 456 words English (United States) Conclusion AaBbCcDc Heading 1 AaBbCcDdEe Heading 2 No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that a punishment of death did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments under all circumstances. In extreme criminal cases, such as when a defendant has been convicted of deliberately killing another, the careful and judicious use of the death penalty may be appropriate if carefully employed. Georgi statute assures the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to serious offenders. Cite this page Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority) Judgment of the Court: Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Death Penalty: 7-2 The NYF7 Praiect Crann v Cenraia 428 11S 152 (1Q7R) overrule the Georgia legislature's finding that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent to future capital crimes and an appropriate means of social retribution against its most Sort by Ideology (More information here) [/ Styles Pane Rehnquist (J Comments / Editing v MEZ3 M 8 2 B 4 Dictate Editor ~ Create PDF Request and share link Signatures _Check for Updates | E3 Focus =l + 126% AutoSave O A . CG PAD ... OYEZ - Gregg v_ Georgia - Saved Home Insert Draw Design Layout References Mailings Review View Acrobat ? Tell me Comments Editing Share Arial V 8 A A Aa Ap EEEVEE 24 T AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDdE AaBbCcDc AaBbCcDdEE Paste BIUvab x x |A DAY Norma No Spacing Heading 1 Heading 2 Styles Dictate Editor Create PDF Request pane and share link Signatures x Office Update To keep up-to-date with security updates, fixes, and improvements, choose Check for Updates. Check for Updates Burger Brennan Stewart White Marshall Blackmun Powell Rehnquist Cite this page The OYEZ Project, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), available at: (last visited ). CASES / JUSTICES / ADVOCATES / BENEFACTORS / HELP / DONATE SCOTUSblog / Justia / Appellate.Net / On the Docket ~ XHTML W3 1.0 STATIC @ TEST120 Page 2 of 2 456 words English (United States) Focus E + 126%