who was the plantift, defendent,lawyers,and judges of the Furman v.Georgia case.?
450813
Furman V. Georgia was a Supreme Court case in 1972. The ruling was requiring some consistency when giving out death penalty decisions. I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for but go to the website below, it has a lot of good information for any report you may need it for.\nHope it helps!
768455
the appellant was George Bush, appellee was Gore.  This was an appeal from Gore v. Harris.  In that case, Gore was appellant and appellee was Katherine Harris, where the Florida Supreme Court ordered a manual recount of the undervotes, and Bush appealed the verdict.
12456
This question is difficult.  Politically?  It's hard to say, because the judges do not make political decisions, but only interpret law.\n\nJustice Scalia is often regarded as the most conservative member of the court, since he helped found the conservative Federalist Society, worked at the relatively conservative law firm Jones Day, and taught at the conservative University of Chicago Law School.  Justice Thomas, however, also has significant conservative roots, but more along the lines of natural law and theory promulgated by think tanks like the Claremont Institute.\n\nChief Justice Roberts is seen as a political conservative due to his service in the White House, but he has remained extremely silent on political issues generally and has occasionally endorsed more liberal causes, like assisting the homosexual rights advocates with legal advice in Romer v. Evans.\n\nJustice Kennedy is perhaps politically more conservative than Justice O'Connor, but again, it's difficult to determine from their interpretations of the Constitution alone.  Justice Kennedy seems to advocate greater social restrictions on procedures like abortion thatn Justice O'Connor would, but it's uncertain whether that's a political view or a constitutional view.  Justice O'Connor was a Republican moderate during her legislative days.\n\nJustice Souter is perhaps the next as we move toward the liberal side of the court.  He was touted as a Republican, but he's quickly moved to support liberal stances on a number of issues, still expressing some caution and moderation.\n\nJustice Breyer is next, liberal in his decisions and policies, but also extremely pragmatic, so much so that his opinions seems relatively conservative in the sense that they seek to preserve the status quo.\n\nJustice Stevens and Justice Ginsburg are the two most ideological liberals.  Justice Stevens has reflected that his political opinions have always conveniently aligned with what he believes the Constitutions says, suggesting that the liberal advocacy he writes really does come forth as political belief.  Justice Ginsburg used to advocate for women's rights groups and on behalf of other progressive and liberal organizations, suggesting a strong ideologically liberal bent.
721913
Stephen G. Breyer\nRuth Bader Ginsburg\nClarence Thomas\nDavid H. Souter\nAnthony Kennedy\nWilliam H. Rhenquist\nAntonin Scalia\nSandra Day O'Connor\nJohn Paul Stevens
49181
All but Charles Grassley, Herbert Kohl, Dianne Feinstein, and Tom Coburn (4 out of 18) have law degrees, though at least Charles Schumer never practiced law. Alito was not aware of the questions or cases, but being an intelligent person, could guess what issues they would want to bring up.
453797
This is basically just a philosophical debate, but I'll put in my two cents.  I know criminal defense attorneys who are very ethical, moral people.  They believe in innocent until proven guilty, which is the foundational principal of our criminal justice system.  Of course, most criminal defendants are convicted (and by implication, most people charged are guilty).  But that does not change the fact that we would want everyone to have a quality defense, because any right we would want for ourselves should be guaranteed to everyone.\n\nJohn Adams (the second President) was a lawyer, and he helped write the Declaration of Independence.  Very cool guy, besides being a Father of Our Country.  Right before the Revolution, he volunteered to represent the British soldiers who were charged in the killings in the Boston Massacre and other lawyers didn't want to represent them(look it up if you don't remember Revolutionary War history).  Even though he lost, he has been quoted as saying that it's the case he was the proudest of taking.  Now that's an ethical stand: one of the Founding Fathers as the criminal defense attorney for the very British troops who were killing the citizens of Boston at the start of the Revolutionary War, because he knew they deserved a fair trial.
592119
Litigants are the participants in "litigation." \n\nBasically, the plaintiffs and defendants.
940390
James A. Garfield.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield
881849
Bill Frist, \nArlen Spector\nJohn Robert (supreme Court)\nThe Republican on Hagerty and Combs
912818
See if you can find the book, Defining The Peace, by, Jennifer E. Brooks..  It , I think has what you are asking. James Oglethorpe founded Ga. in 1733.
1166302
hurray for Scalia. About time some common sense came to the court. Hope we can get alot more like him in there.  Get back to following the constitution and not the whim of justices like Briar and Ginsburg.
558466
Tuesday, May 23, 2006\nMS. ATTORNEY DAY\n\nArabella Mansfield Believe it or not, women weren’t always allowed to become attorneys in the United States. The gavel was pounded for the first time when Belle Aurelia Babb was born on this day in 1846.\n\nIt took some 23 years, but Belle, who later changed her name to Arabella Mansfield, became the first woman admitted to the legal profession in the U.S. A teacher at Ohio Wesleyan college, Mansfield took the bar exam and passed. The legal beagles who tested her gave Arabella a passing grade saying, “...she gave the very best rebuke possible to the imputation that ladies cannot qualify for the practice of law.”\n\nMs. Mansfield took her law degree and put it away somewhere. You see, she never did practice law. Instead she became one of the first female college professors and administrators in the U.S. as the dean of the schools of art and music at DePauw University. She also helped found the Iowa Woman Suffrage Society.\n\nJust knowing that she could become an attorney was enough for Ms. Mansfield. Women attorneys throughout the U.S. - all rise.
705569
witnesses and plaintiff's medical expert.
326885
The Wikipedia entry gives a good little background summary, something like this: \n\nIn late 1828, the state of Georgia was afraid the federal government would not be able to follow through on their promise to remove the Cherokee Nation from Georgia. So the state started taking steps to strip the Cherokee Nation of their rights, in the hopes of forcing them out. In the usual manner of things (lawsuits, lobbying, etc.), the case wound up in the Supreme Court.\n\nA Cherokee delegation selected William Wirt as their defense, and asked for -- and here I'm going to quote Wiki directly as it's hard to paraphrase ...\n\n"an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislature had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society". Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law..." and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee territory on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.\n\nThe injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a domestic dependent nation, over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdication in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee."\n\nThe other site I've linked to looks like the official ruling on the case. (With all its lovely legalese)
172507
Minister Louis Farrakhan.\n\nLM
458424
American Ice Company v. Hunter, Appellant.\nNo. 267, Oct. T., 1914\nSUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n60 Pa. Super. 311, *; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187, ** \n60 Pa. Super. 311; 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 187\n\nAre you looking for the whole case?
163790
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html