A United States Supreme Court case resulting from the rebellion of Africans on board the Spanish schooner in 1839. It was an unusual freedom suit that involved international issues and parties, as well as United States law. Dred Scott v. Sandford

United States v. The Amistad

Brown v Board

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

Before they can be published, scientific papers must be peer-reviewed. this means that: a) some other scientific experts read the papers and guarantee that they are true.b) some other scientific experts read the papers and provide quality control by eliminating many mistakes.c) an editor reads the papers, to make sure that all the semicolons are in the correct places.d) everyone in the world is given the opportunity to comment on the papers through a specially maintainedblog.e) government bureaucrats read the papers, to be sure that the papers do not insult the political positions ofthe current officeholders.

An employee of the state government always received his state paycheck on the last workday of the month. the employee was not a good money manager, and just barely managed to make it from paycheck to paycheck each month. on the second to the last workday of the month, the employee had $45 in his checking account, and, needing to buy a birthday gift for his sister, he wrote a check to a gift boutique for $100. he knew that he would be receiving his paycheck the next day, so he could deposit the paycheck before the check would be sent to the bank.however, unbeknownst to the employee, the state legislature was having a budget impasse. because the state constitution prohibited any deficit spending, state employees were not paid as usual. without a paycheck to deposit, the check written to the gift boutique was returned for insufficient funds. the merchant complained to the police, who arrested the employee and charged him under a statute that prohibited "issuing a check knowing that it is drawn against insufficient funds, with intent to defraud the payee of the check."what should be the outcome of the employee's prosecution? a not guilty, because the employee intended to deposit his paycheck the next day.b not guilty, because it was reasonable for the employee to expect that he would receive his paycheck as usual.c guilty, because the employee knew when he wrote the check that he did not have sufficient funds in his account to honor it.d guilty, because reliance on a future source of income does not vitiate the employee's violation of the statute when he wrote the check.

The police of a resort town discovered that a well-known cat burglar was currently living in town under an assumed name. to try to catch her in the act of burglary, an undercover officer approached the burglar with a plan for a burglary. the undercover officer told the burglar that he knew who she was and that he had a plan to steal jewels from someone staying in one of the town's resorts. the burglar initially refused the offer; however, after lengthy cajoling, she finally agreed to the plan. as the time for the burglary drew near, the burglar had second thoughts. three hours before the theft was scheduled to take place, the burglar called the police and told them of the plan. she told them that she was not going to show up, but that her cohort (the undercover officer) would be there, and told them how to recognize the undercover officer. is the burglar guilty of conspiracy at common law?