PLEASE PARAPHRASE THE PASSAGES BELOW. In Brian Short v. State of Florida, the le

Question

PLEASE PARAPHRASE THE PASSAGES BELOW.

In Brian Short v. State of Florida, the legal issues that are involved are the curtailing of personal freedoms as regards to marriage and equality. Generally, people have the right of choice, and for this matter to marry whom they want to. The state of Florida in crafting that law is intruding into the personal freedoms of the two couples. The other legal issue involved in this case is inequality. The constitution of the United States prohibits all forms of inequality. The statute that had been adopted by the State of Florida encapsulates inequality by not allowing two ‘short’ people to marry. In this case, Brian Short will win. This is because the provisions of the constitution as regards to equality and personal freedoms override the statute that had been adopted by the state of Florida. The Constitution is supreme and therefore such a law will be declared null and void.

In Michael’s case, the main legal issues involved includes inadmissibility of oral evidence, validity of evidence, actions of the actions of the University and the right to a fair hearing. Generally, in a court of law, oral evidence is inadmissible. Secondly, the Dr. Pickett did have evidence that could be termed a valid such as photos or maybe witnesses. She relied on what she saw. Moreover, the actions of the university were unreasonable because it did not launch a formal investigation into this matter and that Michael was not given a fair hearing, instead he was rusticated. Michael will win this case because one of the principles of equity stipulates that no one should be condemned unheard and that he has the right to sue the university on such premise.

In this case, the legal issue involved is marriage hence they both have capacity to pursue other relationships. At times marriage can be implied by conduct of cohabiting couples but in this case, the two were offsetting their expenses individually. Marriage is generally defined as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all the rest as defined in the case of Hyde v. Wrench. In this particular case study, there was no presumption of marriage. Swift will win this case because there was no marriage and as a result there was no marital property. Thus Lautner cannot purport to sue Swift for marital property because there was none in the first place.

Explanation / Answer

The first case that has been talked about in this is of Brian Short wherein a written law was passed by the state of Florida which restricted two short people to marry, but this was acknowledged that the constitution of US does not allow any form of inequity and hence the judgment was in the favor of Brian and the statute adopted by the State of Florida was over ridden.

In the second Michael was rusticated without being heard and it is against the court of law that any one cannot be held guilty without hearing his/her side of the story as well. So this will go in the favor of Michael and he can now sue the university. Last case says that all the obligations prevail on the account of marriage but there was no marriage at the first place between Lautner and Swift. Also, it has been mentioned that they were handling their individual expenses and hence Swift cannot be sued for marital property.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.