Books published by publisher LandMark Publications

This casebook contains the text of the 50 most cited US Supreme Court decisions. They appear below in the order of popularity. The rankings are based on the number of times the decision is cited by scholarly publications.The book also contains a copy of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all the Amendments to the Constitution.1. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 4832. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 1133. Griswold et al. v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 4794. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 4365. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 2546. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 6437. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 648. Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 3359. Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 18610. Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 4511. Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 112. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 53713. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 13714. Meyer v. State of Nebraska 262 U.S. 39015. Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 34716. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 117. United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 14418. Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 51019. Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 61820. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 467 U.S. 83721. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 62422. Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 21423. Wisconsin v. Yoder et al. 406 U.S. 20524. Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 43825. Olmstead et al. v. United States 26. Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 127. Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 128. Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 25429. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson 316 U.S. 53530. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 26531. In Re Gault 387 U.S. 132. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 42433. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington et al. 326 U.S. 31034. Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 23835. Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 39836. Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 18637. Cantwell et al. v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 29638. Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U.S. 139. In re Winship 397 U.S. 35840. Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims et al. 377 U.S. 53341. Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 31942. Mathews v. Eldrige 424 U.S. 31943. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 47644. Craig v. Borden 429 U.S. 19045. Washington v. Davis 426 U.S. 22946. United States v. O'Brien 391 U.S. 36747. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing 330 U.S. 148. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania 505 U.S. 83349. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 35650. Lemon et al. v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602

This casebook contains a selection of over 500 historic Supreme Court decisions in the area of Constitutional Law. The cases give coverage of all the major doctrinal areas taught in constitutional law classes. The selection of cases was made so as to maximize the likelihood that any case assigned in a law school class would be available to the student. This ebook was created as an affordable and convenient supplement to an unwieldy textbook. A specific case can be quickly accessed by searching for one of the named parties.

Just about everyone makes a really off-the-wall decision at some point. Usually it’s no big deal. But if it ends up changing people’s lives. . .It’s 1973, and Tony Piza decides he needs a carefree year off after college—with pay.To the shock of his tight-knit family and closest friends, he postpones law school and talks his way into a job teaching sixth grade at a Catholic school in Staten Island, N. Y.A paid vacation if ever there was one! Yeah, right.Say hi to the Moby Dick of miscalculations. His pathetic effort is making him look bad, especially compared to the other sixth-grade instructor, Sister Theresa, an energetic young nun whose sunny disposition could have turned Attila the Hun into a daisy-picking philanthropist.It’s also crimping his efforts to enchant Colleen O’Brien, a stunning, straight-talking teacher who sees right through him.To make matters worse, his inability to curb his snarky and irreverent sense of humor antagonizes the powers-that-be: the alpha-male president of the school board, and the pastor who’s more interested in single malt scotch than saving souls.Does he have the ability—or the desire—to turn things around to try to save his job? And will he ever realize that his students deserve a lot more than they’ve been getting from him?Scroll to the top and get “Mr. Pizza” now. You’ll be glad you did.

This is the second edition of our casebook presenting the fifty most cited US Supreme Court decisions. In addition to the main opinions, this edition also includes the concurring and dissenting opinions. The rankings of the cases did not change from the previous edition. They appear in the table of contents in the order of frequency of citation.Also included is a copy the of the US Constitution.The original ebook with only the main opinions is at ASIN: B004ZULORE.1. Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 4832. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 1133. Griswold et al. v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 4794. Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 4365. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 2546. Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 6437. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 648. Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 3359. Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 18610. Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 4511. Loving v. Virginia 388 U.S. 112. Plessy v. Ferguson 163 U.S. 53713. Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 13714. Meyer v. State of Nebraska 262 U.S. 39015. Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 34716. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 117. United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 14418. Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 51019. Shapiro v. Thompson 394 U.S. 61820. Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council 467 U.S. 83721. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 62422. Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 21423. Wisconsin v. Yoder et al. 406 U.S. 20524. Eisenstadt v. Baird 405 U.S. 43825. Olmstead et al. v. United States 26. Buckley v. Valeo 424 U.S. 127. Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 128. Goldberg v. Kelly 397 U.S. 25429. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson 316 U.S. 53530. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 26531. In Re Gault 387 U.S. 132. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 42433. International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington et al. 326 U.S. 31034. Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 23835. Sherbert v. Verner 374 U.S. 39836. Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 18637. Cantwell et al. v. Connecticut 310 U.S. 29638. Shelley v. Kraemer 334 U.S. 139. In re Winship 397 U.S. 35840. Reynolds, Judge, et al. v. Sims et al. 377 U.S. 53341. Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 31942. Mathews v. Eldrige 424 U.S. 31943. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 47644. Craig v. Borden 429 U.S. 19045. Washington v. Davis 426 U.S. 22946. United States v. O'Brien 391 U.S. 36747. Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing 330 U.S. 148. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania 505 U.S. 83349. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 35650. Lemon et al. v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 602

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, interpret and apply provisions of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972. * * * Title IX provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). The Supreme Court has recognized an implied "private right of action to enforce [Title IX's] prohibition on intentional sex discrimination," see Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677, 690-93, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), which includes actions for monetary damages by private persons and "encompasses intentional sex discrimination in the form of a recipient's deliberate indifference." Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173, 125 S.Ct. 1497, 161 L.Ed.2d 361 (2005). While the Court has recognized that this right of action extends to students and employees, it has never expressly restricted it to those two categories of plaintiffs. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 281, 118 S.Ct. 1989, 141 L.Ed.2d 277 (1998); North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 520-21, 102 S.Ct. 1912, 72 L.Ed.2d 299 (1982). In fact, the Court has stated that "Title IX ... broadly prohibits a funding recipient from subjecting any person to 'discrimination' 'on the basis of sex.'" Jackson, 544 U.S. at 173, 125 S.Ct. 1497. Sexual harassment, moreover, "can constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX." Gebser, 524 U.S. at 283, 118 S.Ct. 1989. Doe v. Brown University, 896 F. 3d 127 (1st Cir. 2018).

At seventeen, Bethany is out of control. Unruly and undisciplined, she messes up yet again, subsequently appears in Court and her exploits are relayed on national television. Her wealthy mother has had enough of being embarrassed by her daughter and sends her to live out west with her father... which comes as a huge shock to Bethany as she's grown up believing her father to be dead. She's also grown up neglected without the care and attention of a loving mother. Her father, Pete, is a cowboy with a wife and two daughters. Bethany is rude to him from the start, and before Pete gets her back to the ranch, she gets her first ever whacking... on her bare bottom. Furthermore, although her younger sister is nice, Molly is just as surly as Bethany and the two fight - and earn a severe spanking. Bethany has a real culture shock adapting to life on a ranch. She has to work hard doing chores, attend church on Sundays, and is expected to pay attention and keep out of trouble at school. Harsh corporal punishment is a part of the fabric of life in her new environment, but when she is punished unjustly, she rebels and runs away. But perhaps Bethany can be given the opportunity to mend her ways and realise that her new family do actually care about her...

Escaping the Horochów ghetto was just the beginning for twelve‑year‑old Musia Perlmutter. Alone, starving, freezing at times, and running and hiding for her life, Musia sought refuge in the forest for two years while Holocaust death camps loomed nearby. Child of the Forest is based on the true story and tribulations of Shulamit “Musia” Perlmutter, born in 1929 to Simcha and Fruma Perlmutter, and stands as a memorial to her extraordinary courage.

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding employer retaliation claims under the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. * * * "The First Amendment, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, shields government employees from retaliation for engaging in protected speech." Diadenko v. Folino, 741 F.3d 751, 755 (7th Cir. 2013). To prevail on a First Amendment retaliation claim, "a public employee must show that: (1) she engaged in constitutionally protected speech; (2) she suffered a deprivation because of her employer's action; and (3) her protected speech was a but-for cause of the employer's action." Id. * * * With respect to the third factor, a plaintiff must "show that a violation of his First Amendment rights was a motivating factor of the harm he's complaining of." Thayer v. Chiczewski, 705 F.3d 237, 251 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Greene v. Doruff, 660 F.3d 975, 977 (7th Cir. 2011)). After the plaintiff makes that showing, "the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the harm would have occurred anyway." Id. at 251-52 (quoting Greene, 660 F.3d at 977). "Once a defendant produces evidence that the same decision would have been made in the absence of the protected speech, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proffered reason was pretextual and that the real reason was retaliatory animus." Id. at 252. "At the summary judgment stage, this means a plaintiff must produce evidence upon which a rational finder of fact could infer that the defendant's proffered reason is a lie." Id. (quoting Zellner v. Herrick, 639 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2011)). * * *Ordinarily, "the persuasiveness of an employer's non-retaliatory explanation... is 'for the finder of fact to assess.'" Massey v. Johnson, 457 F.3d 711, 719 (7th Cir. 2006) (quoting Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 973 (7th Cir. 1997)). However, "summary judgment should be granted when, in light of the defendant's unrebutted evidence, 'the court can say without reservation that a reasonable finder of fact would be compelled to credit the employer's case on this point.'" Id. (quoting Venters, 123 F.3d at 973). "We have repeatedly emphasized that when 'assessing a plaintiff's claim that an employer's explanation is pretextual, we do not... second-guess[] an employer's facially legitimate business decisions.'" Lord v. High Voltage Software, Inc., 839 F.3d 556, 564 (7th Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724, 736 (7th Cir. 2008)). "An employer's reasons for firing an employee can be 'foolish or trivial or even baseless,' as long as they are 'honestly believed.'" Id. (quoting Culver v. Gorman & Co., 416 F.3d 540, 547 (7th Cir. 2005)).Milliman v. County of McHenry, 893 F. 3d 422 (7th Cir. 2018)

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, discuss and apply provisions of Title IX. The selection of decisions spans from 2012 to the date of publication.Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." See 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). An implied right of action for such claims lies only "against the educational institution itself." Frazier v. Fairhaven Sch. Comm., 276 F.3d 52, 65 (1st Cir.2002). Morgan v. Town of Lexington, MA, 823 F. 3d 737 (1st Cir. 2016).Congress enacted Title IX under its Spending Clause powers, making it in the nature of a contract: In accepting federal funds, States agree to comply with its mandate. Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 181-82 (2005). Given its origins, Title IX's only (express) enforcement mechanism is through agencies' regulation of federal funding. Congress directs agencies to effectuate § 1681(a) by, among other means, the "termination of or refusal to grant or to continue" funding to education programs. 20 U.S.C. § 1682; see Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 255 (2009). Today this directive applies afar: Twenty-one federal agencies currently enforce Title IX. See Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance, 65 Fed. Reg. 52,858 (Aug. 30, 2000) [hereinafter Title IX Common Rule] (codified in various sections of the Code of Federal Regulations). And no other federal statute empowers agencies to restrict funding from education programs engaging in sex discrimination. Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, (3rd Cir. 2017).

This casebook contains 168 federal court of appeals decisions, and 24 Supreme Court decisions, that address the issue of commercial speech and its alleged infringement in violation of the First Amendment. The selection of decisions spans from 2001 through the date of publication. The most frequently cited decisions appear first in each section.A four-part test must be applied to assess an unconstitutionally underinclusive ban on commercial speech under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980):(1) if the communication is neither misleading nor related to unlawful activity, then it merits First Amendment scrutiny as a threshold matter; in order for the restriction to withstand such scrutiny, (2) the State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restriction on commercial speech; (3) the restriction must directly advance the state interest involved; and (4) it must not be more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Vanguard Outdoor, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 648 F. 3d 737 (9th Cir. 2011)