McClung argued that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional, at least as applied to a small, private business such as his. McClung further argued that the amount of food purchased by Ollie's that actually crossed state lines (about half of the food at Ollie's) was so small that Ollie's effectively had no effect on interstate commerce (although McClung admitted that a significant amount of Ollie's business was to interstate travelers). Because of this, McClung argued that Congress had no power to regulate Ollie's Barbecue under the Commerce Clause.
The court ruled unanimously that the Civil Rights Act is constitutional and that it was properly applied against Ollie's Barbecue.
Justice Clark wrote the majority opinion, with concurrences by Justices Black, Douglas, and Goldberg. In section 2 of the opinion, the Court agreed with McClung that Ollie's itself had virtually no effect on interstate commerce. In section 4 of the opinion, the Court held that racial discrimination in restaurants had a significant impact on interstate commerce, and therefore Congress has the power to regulate this conduct under the Commerce Clause. The Court's conclusion was based on extensive Congressional hearings on the issue.
After decades in operation, Ollie's Barbecue moved to the suburb of Pelham in 1999 and closed in 2001.
Case citation
Case citation is a system used by legal professionals to identify past court case decisions. These are found either in series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a neutral style that identifies a decision regardless of where it is reported. Case citations are formatted differently in different jurisdictions, but generally contain the same key information.
A legal citation is a "reference to a legal precedent or authority, such as a case, statute, or work, that either agrees with or contradicts a given position". Where cases are published on paper, the citation usually contains the following information:
In some report series, for example in England and Australia, volumes are not numbered independently of the year. So the year and volume number (usually no greater than 4) are required to identify which book of the series has the case reported within its covers. In such citations, it is usual in these jurisdictions to apply square brackets "" to the year (which may not be the year that the case was decided, For example, a case decided in December 2001 may have been reported in 2002).
The Internet brought with it the opportunity for courts to publish their decisions on websites. Decisions of many courts from all over the world can now be found through the website WorldLII and its member institutes.
Most court decisions are not published on paper. The large number of court decisions found online resulted in a flood of information. The result was that a medium-neutral citation system was adopted. This usually contains the following information:
Rather than utilizing page numbers for "pinpoint references", which would depend upon particular printers and browsers, pinpoint quotations refer to paragraph numbers.
The conjunction "versus" is abbreviated to "v" in Commonwealth countries and to "v." in the United States.
In common law countries with an adversarial system of justice, the names of the opposing parties are separated in the case title by the abbreviation "v." The abbreviation represents the Latin word "versus", which means "against". When case titles are read out loud, the "v." can be pronounced, depending on the context, as "and", "against", "versus", or "vee".
Barisal Zilla School
Barisal Zilla School is a boys school located in Barisal, Bangladesh. It is one of the oldest and top ranked high schools in the country and the first high school in Barisal Division.
It was founded by an Englishman, N. W. Garret, on 23 December 1829 with only 8 students. Now it has more than two thousand students.
Barisal Zilla School produced many leading local reformers, politicians, statesmen, educationists, philosophers, poets-writers, and sportsmen. Those notable persons include:
Boynton v. Virginia
Boynton v. Virginia, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. On December 20, 1958, Bruce Boynton, a senior at Howard Law School, left Washington, D.C. on a bus to go home for Christmas to Montgomery, Alabama. At the bus terminal in Richmond, Virginia he entered the restaurant and sat in the "white only" section. For refusing to leave, he was arrested and convicted for violating a Virginia statute making it illegal for anyone "without authority of law" to remain after being forbidden to do so. He then appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia. He maintained “that his conviction violated the Interstate Commerce Act and the Equal Protection, Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the Federal Constitution.” But the state Supreme Court upheld his conviction.He next petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the lower court. The Court held that Boynton “had a federal right to remain in the white portion of the restaurant” as the Interstate Commerce Act “forbids any interstate common carrier by motor vehicle to subject any person to unjust discrimination.” Justice Hugo Black delivered the majority opinion.
The court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of Boynton. It held that interstate passengers were protected by the Interstate Commerce Act and the terminal's restaurant was a part of that facility. In part the decision read:
Justices Tom C. Clark and Charles Evans Whittaker dissented in the 7-2 decision. It was the first time since 1946 the court had split over matters of racial segregation.
"Boynton v. Virginia" paved the way and inspired the Freedom Riders to test the new ruling. Black and white riders rode together on Southern racially segregated buses beginning in 1961. After six months of protests and press coverage of the Freedom Riders, The Interstate Commerce Commission outlawed racial discrimination in seating passengers on interstate busses. It ordered the removal of "whites only" signs from all interstate bus terminals.
Gregg v. Georgia
Gregg v. Georgia, "Proffitt v. Florida", "Jurek v. Texas", "Woodson v. North Carolina", and "Roberts v. Louisiana", were a group of landmark cases that the United States Supreme Court decided together in 1976. They had to do with capital punishment in the United States.
In these cases, the Court ruled that the states could use capital punishment (the death penalty), but only if they followed certain rules. If the states did not follow these rules when they sentenced people to death, they would be violating the Constitution of the United States by giving out a cruel and unusual punishment.
In 1972, the Court had ruled that the way Georgia was using the death penalty was unconstitutional. After this decision, all of the states stopped using the death penalty while they changed their capital punishment laws. Because of this, there were no executions in the United States between 1972 and 1976.
However, in "Gregg v. Georgia", the Court ruled that Georgia's new death penalty law was constitutional, and they gave the state permission to execute Troy Leon Gregg. This ended the temporary stop on executions in the United States. It made it clear to the states that as long as they followed the rules set out in the "Gregg" decision, they could start using the death penalty again.
The "Gregg" case happened because of another Supreme Court case called "Furman v. Georgia," which the Court decided In 1972. In this case, three different men who had been sentenced to death argued that Georgia was giving them a cruel and unusual punishment. This is against the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which makes cruel and unusual punishments illegal.