You are to select one of the Supreme Court cases and type 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: Sheppard V. Maxwell

PLEASE FOLLOW THIS EXACT FORMAT BELOW. TYIA

Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470, I. KELOetal v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) III. 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 thmu@ eminent domain for the dmnpment 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 muled 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: Tn a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme. Justices Stevens, Eennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in majority with Justices O' Connor, Rehnaquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. V1. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT: (by Justice Stevens) The majonty opimton and decision of the court was delivered by Justice Stevens. The majornity upmmn was primarily based on two previous court rulings, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. 467 1U.S. 2 (1984) and Bermarn v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). In both cases the local government took pmperty through emminent domain and redistributed 1t to private entitites for development and urban renewal. The majonty opimon held that the New London land in question 1s 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 1s paid just compensation However, because the taking iz 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 15 not 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 1f the \"public Sample Brief previously submitted by a student in BUAD 3470, I. KELOetal v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005) III. 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 thmu@ eminent domain for the dmnpment 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 muled 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: Tn a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme. Justices Stevens, Eennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in majority with Justices O' Connor, Rehnaquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting. V1. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT: (by Justice Stevens) The majonty opimton and decision of the court was delivered by Justice Stevens. The majornity upmmn was primarily based on two previous court rulings, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff. 467 1U.S. 2 (1984) and Bermarn v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). In both cases the local government took pmperty through emminent domain and redistributed 1t to private entitites for development and urban renewal. The majonty opimon held that the New London land in question 1s 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 1s paid just compensation However, because the taking iz 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 15 not 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 1f the \"public 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 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 not freely accessible to all, the New London project sufficiently satisfies the "public use" requirement of the emmiment 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. VIL. 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 transactionVIII. 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 act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legilative authority... A law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice for the people to entrust a Legislature with such power; and, therefore it cannot be presumes that they have done it." Calder v. Bull 3 Dall.386,388 (1798) Justice O'Connor wrote, "Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as it might be upgraded." Justice O'Connor proposes a limited Constitutionalist view of eminent domain holding that property taken under the Fifth Amendment must be strictly for public use and in no way should benefit any single or limited group of people. The taking of property must be for the good of all people equally. Justice O'Connor laid out three primary areas where emminent domain has come into play. First, to acquire land for roads, a hospital, or a military base. The second to acquire land such as a railroad, public utility, and public stadium. The third is for certain private enterprises such as in the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. In these two cases there were extenuating circumstances. In Berman, the area was so blighted as to be a health hazard. In Hawaii Housing Authority, the majority of the land was in the hands of so few people, it was "skewing" the state's residential fee simple market. In both cases the public good was being served without unduly benefiting a select group of individuals. O'Connor said it is the role of the court to determine whether transfers are solely for the benefit of a private transferee. Also, eminent domain is to upgrade and not downgrade property. She agreed that the real power of eminent domain should rest with local and state legislature, but it should be done with a watchful eye by the courts because "the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process." Justice O'Connor concluded that the taking of the New London property was unconstitutional and that the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings IX. SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE THOMAS Justice Thomas said that the "public use" clause of the Fifth Amendment has been erased from our Constitution. The "public use" clause along with the "just compensation" clause in the Fifth Amendment are an express limit on the government's power of eminent domain.CASES / JUSTICES / ADVOCATES / BENEFACTORS / HELP SCOTUSblog / Justia / Appellate.Net / On the Docket Home>> Decades> 1960-1969> 1965> Sheppard v. Maxwell Sheppard v. Maxwell Case Media Docket: 490 Oral Argument Citation: 384 U.S. 333 (1966) Written Opinion Petitioner: Sheppard Respondent: Maxwell Abstract Advocates Oral Argument: Monday, February 28, 1966 Bemard A (Argued the cause for the American Civil Decision: Monday, June 6, 1966 Berkman Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging Criminal Procedure, Extra-Legal Jury Influences, Pretrial Publicity reversal) Issues: F. Lee Bailey (Argued the cause for the petitioner) John T. (Argued the cause for the respondent) Corrigan William B. (Argued the cause for the respondent) Saxbe Facts of the Case After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question What threshold must be crossed before a trial is said to be so prejudicial, due to context and publicity, as to interfere with a defendant's Fifth Amendment due process right to a fair trial? Conclusion In an 8-to-1 decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicationg both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting. The Cleveland television media's repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in detail to crimes he was later charged with, the blatant and hostile trial coverage by Cleveland's radio and print media, and the physical arrangement of the courtroom itself - which facilitated collaboration between the prosecution and present media - all combined to so inflame the jurors' minds against Sheppard as to deny him a fair trial. The Court concluded that the trial judge should have either postponed the proceedings or transferred them to a different venue Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority) Sort by Ideology (More information here) Full Opinion: Criminal Procedure, Extra-Legal Jury Influences, Pretrial Publicity: 8 - 1 25 Warren Black Douglas Clark Harlan Brennan Stewart White Fortas Cite this page The OYEZ Project, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)