An example of exemplary decision?

Could you mention some exemplary decisions of any legal system (US, Italian, German, French, Austrian, etc) of the last 25 years? How would you explain their exemplarity according to what we discussed in class?

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “An example of exemplary decision?

  1. Antonio Belviso says:

    Well known and often reported as exemplarity is the Soraya case, which refers to right of privacy. Other exemples could be the sentence 500/1999 of United Sections that introduced the recoverability of interest in public administrations’ legality (interesse legittimo). Even if it does not create a stare decisis, an exemplary sentence of Cassazione give a new way to interpretation of the social reality, accordig to its funcion of nomofilachia, consistency and uniformity in the interpretation of the law.In EU system an examplarity could be Simmenthal sentence that affirmed direct and immediate application of CE rules by national judges. In US system some landmark sentences are: Miranda v. Arizona (right to silence during arrest); Roe v. Wade (right to privacy in abortion); Engel v. Vitale (against State prayers in public schools). Another classical but older example is Marbury v. Madison sentence, that affirmed in USA the possibility of constitutional judge of a law. But we know also exemplarity of negative sentences: for example condemnation of Sacco and Vanzetti is the best example of bad justice.

    Like

  2. Beatrice Giordano says:

    I would like to mention the “Lautsi vs Italia” case which is known because it’s about the religious freedom and the importance of secularism of the State. First, Italy was condemned to pay a refund because the crucifix is considered a religious symbol and it could go against religious freedom. In 2011, the European Court of human rights established that the crucifux doesn’t affect our beliefs because there’s no proof that it could influence the students. Other important judgements are what we call “The Twin Judgements” which established the binding nature of the CEDU, so that the laws contained in it have the same value of our Constitution even if they have to be in compliance with it. Another important judgement is the “Francovich ” which set the refund for the breach of the European law .

    Like

  3. Martina Diglio says:

    Just to reconnect with the literary examples given during yesterday lesson, a good example of an exemplary decision could be the decision 126/1968 by the Costitutional Court in which was declared inconstitutional the art. 556 c.p.. This article considered as a crime wives’ adulterine relationships and was found contrary to the Constitution in which it is prescribed equality between men and women and in particular, between wife and husband (art. 29). This decision could be considered really a good example of what we said yesterday about the fact that sometimes the Court expresses what is called “the spirit of the time”. Women has always been seen as “inferior” to men and, especially in marriage they were totally subjected to the power of the husband, as can testify other norms such as the “honor killing”. Afterwards, when women started to claim for their rights, for the equality of the sexes, the society started to change, to accept this equality, and the laws changed too.
    Similar considerations could be done for gay people rights. By now, in Italy we haven’t any decision that clearly states equal rights for gay union and marriage, but in many cases, the judges invited the legislator to adopt some regulation.

    Like

  4. Antonio Belviso says:

    In second chapter of book V of Monarchia, Dante gave the famous definition of right: ius est realis et personalis hominis ad hominem proportio, quae servata hominum servat societatem, et corrupta corrumpit – nam illa Digestorum descriptio non dicit quod est iuris, sed describit illud per notitiam utendi illo. The definition (descriptio) that Dante remember is probably the famous Ulpianus’ definition: Iuris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. This last is clearly an objective view that exlude the subject component. Dante focuses instead in intersubjectivity (hominis ad hominem), deeply linked to real world (realis), inspired to Seneca: «Propter Seneca “legem vinculum” dicat “humanae societatis”». In this way Dante is influenced by St. Thomas: ius est res. God creates world with predeterminate laws and laws that he gave after to humans: natural laws and divine laws. Humans write laws only to reinforce that perfect laws to convince unwillings to respect them. There is, in this aspect, a great similarity between ART (mind -> instrument -> substance) and NATURE (unmoved mover -> creation -> creature). Deriving from God, Law is an Art, the moment in which God is the engineer rather than the artist (the architect that He will be when He will model all things). Dante wrote this verse (molte fiate all’intenzion dell’arte….a risponder la natura è sorda). Human beings are the artistic realization of God but sometimes, they infringe his Law, in the same way a marble peace breaks, under wise scalpel of the sculptor due to material defects only. In this way, hell fire restores the order in the creation, but the harmony between God and creatures, based on aequitas and virtus, needs someting more, according to Martino wrote one time: “nihil aliud est aequitas quam Deus”. This more thing is one of the great message of hope for Christianity: a great invention, desumed but not revealed by Scripture, that Dante is largely responsible for giving: the Purgatory. The great possibility of redemption that give courage to men and women in being sinner and mortal, and praying for their dead relatives. In this way, Roman law is fundamental because is a part of God plan, in searching universal peace (From Monarchia: Romanum Imperium de Fonte nascitur pietatis.. itaque illud patrocinium potius quam imperium poterat nominari). So human law guaranteed by Emperor is finalised to reach human happiness (the pax Augustea, the garden of Eden in which Jesus was born) and approach this world (Civitas terrena) to the highest world (Civitas Dei), the realm governed only by laws of God. In this view Emperor and Pope are the Augustus and Caesar, protectors of human and spiritual happiness.

    Like

  5. Antonio Belviso says:

    An interesting character in Inferno related to private law, but also to criminal law (maybe Dante was the son of a notary), we can find in XXX canto: His name is GIANNI SCHICCHI DE’ CAVALCANTI “che rabbioso altrui va così conciando” (because his punishment is running as a crazy biting everything). He was a florentine horseman, very able in imitations. To obtain the better mule of Tuscany, (per guadagnare la donna della torma), he disguised himself as Buoso Donati (falsificò in sé Buoso Donati) who died just several hours before, and imitating his voice, dictated a false testament in front of a notary (testando e dando al testamento norma), risking so much for his action. Dante dedicates only few verses to this character but it was a very good subject for a comedy. In fact in XX century the florentine lawyer and writer Giovacchino Forzano well known among musicians for writing lyrical dramas (so called libretto d’opera), after documenting on laws and traditions in Florence of XIII century, wrote a comedy in one act, set to music by Giacomo Puccini, the greatest italian composer of the last century, that describes with musical notes the florentine criminal law of the times and satirically the figure of the notary in Florence. A masterpiece represented all over the world even 96 years after its debut, that revalued completely Dante’s character. But this argument will be perfect, talking about Law and Music…

    Like

  6. Mattia Palatta says:

    We could mention also some rulings from EJC relevant for the building of the european communitarian law, such as the Enel v. Costa case and the Simmental case, two rulings which perfectly embodies exemplarity because thanks to this decisions the principle of the supremacy of the communitarian law was stated instead of the superiority of the single national laws (in the specific case above the Italian law system): in these case the exemplarity is shown by the followings this rulings had in the future. But also in our national system there are some exemplars rulings, written by Corte costituzionale and Corte di Cassazione. In the first case the Consulta wrote the ruling 154/1985, which treated the topic of the similarity between parliamentary rules and ordinary laws; in the second case The Suprema Corte gave the life to the 500/1999 ruling, one of the most famous and innovative ruling of the Italian law and of modern jurisprudence and, maybe, one of the main pillar of the administrative Italian law nowadays. Last, but not least, we could refer also to the 1/2014 ruling by Corte costituzionale, where the electoral law called “Porcellum” was declared illegitimate according to the constitutional law: in this last case the exemplarity was mainly given in a political dimension and point of view instead of a judicial one.

    Like

  7. Lorenzo Borchi says:

    Last year the court of Brescia confirmed the judgement which sentences a well known italian lawyer for his omophobic statements during an interview. He said he would never employ gay people and that omosexuals have mental and phisycal anomalies. The court says that the lawyer’s statements violate the workplace discrimination law (216/2003). So we are not talking about the so called ” hate crimes”. The abusive part of the speech is the first one because it could virtually hinder the access to employment. However, this was the first time, and we can consider it as a jurisprudential decision that counts as exemplary. We don’t know how to consider the second part of the statement, an expression of art 21 Cost? Or a missed chance to introduce omophoby as a hate crime. In both cases it would have been exemplary.

    We can link this theme to the second aspect of exemplarity: the costruction of terms.
    USA have laws against discrimination and omophoby is mentioned in the hate crimes bill.
    They definitely care about this issue and they give great importance to offensive terms. To use omophobic or xenophobic words is socially and legally not accepted.
    This could became a problem. Sounds weird?
    A recent research of the sociologist C.J. Pascoe ,University of California press 2007 says that, for young north american people, the term “fag” have lost his omophobic meaning. It became an insult for eterosexual people, used by boys to ridicule others who failed in masculinity or strength.
    And what about England, where “fag” is the most common way to say “cigarette”, and “faggot” is a meatball.

    Like

  8. Diana Martellini says:

    i think the guadagnino verdict (18-01-2011) case can be considered an exemplary one, or more precisely a case in which the CEDU court wanted to make a seriuos statement about state’s immunity and labour relation.
    mrs guadagnino was an italian citizen hired in italy for by french insitution. when she retired, the woman needed to start a proceding about her retirement found, and when she did, the italian judge denied italy’s jurisdiction on behalf of french one. then, according to this verdict, mrs guadagnino started a proceding in france, but her lawyer made a mistake so appeald to a court whithout competence and the women had to see her request denied again.
    mrs guadagnino at this point directed her request to the CEDU court, taking to court both italy and frace.
    at the end, france was exonerated, but italy was convicted for denying mrs guadagnino her right to access the judicial system.
    the discrepancy between the outcomes towards italy and france, absolutely debatable, not entirely embraceble and understandable, has no other explanation than a simple fact: in this case the court were trying to compell the european states not to deny ther jurisdiction and make sure that che transnational labour lawsuits had a real outcomes and all european citizen involved didn’t see their right denied

    Like

  9. Jakob Zarari says:

    An exemplary legal decision in Austria was been rendered in October 2014 and it is part of the “2011 cash for influence scandal”:
    It is about an Austrian member of the European Parliament who accepted offers of up to 100 000 € per year in exchange for proposing amendments in the EU parliament. Two journalists of the British magazine The Sunday Time convicted him by pretending being themselves lobbyists and requesting votes to table or support certain amendments in exchange for money. The journalists filmed these conversations secretly and in one of these videos you can see this politician saying:” Of course I am a lobbyist.”
    The case went to the Austrian Supreme Court that sentenced him to three years in prison. It was the first time that a former minister in Austria (from 2000 to 2004 he was Minister for the Interior) was sentenced in this drastic way. The president of the Austrian Supreme Court justified this decision by giving it an exemplary status and arguing that a corrupt MEP is an evil, which threatens the entire EU.

    Like

  10. Andrea Zoppo says:

    My first thought is about the “Thyssenkrupp sentence”. In this case The mangers of the Thyssenkrupp industry were sued of manslaughter, The prosecution argued that the plant’s managers had deliberately sacrificed security for cost-savings ahead of the planned closure of the plant, knowing that an accident was possible. Beacuse of this seven workers died in a blaze that broke out in its Turin plant in December 2007. The Italian “Corte d’ Assisse” sentenced Harald Espenhahn, chief executive of the German steelmaker at its Turin plant, sentenced to 16½ years in prison on charges of “second degree murder” and four other managers received prison terms of 13½ years for complicity, and a fifth was sentenced to 10 years and 10 months.
    I consider this an “Exemplary” decision because for the first time a judge senteced a work incident as a homicide,

    Like

  11. Hichem Sebaibi says:

    The 22 march 2012, the “Conseil Constitutionnel” in France has given a decision about the conformity of a law to the french constitution (which takes in count the declaration of human rights 1789 and many other texts in relation with human rights). To summarize, this law was about the creation of a big file wich would have the vocation to identify the french population in order to protect them from usurpation issues.

    But, The Conseil Constitutionnel has decided to censor this law because of the danger for the privacy of citizens in application to the human rights existing in the french constitution.

    It’s a great examplary decision because it sets out a framwork to the use of high technology by the french government in the identification and people filing matter. Moreover “The wise” (french nickemane used to speak of the Conseil Constitutionnel judges) has given more importance to the human rights rather than “national security” and “public order” and showed the limit to the Legislator.

    Like

  12. Federica Politi says:

    I think that an exemple of an “Exemplarity Decision” could be the sencence of the International Court of Justice 2002 about the Minister “Yerodia”.
    The case concerned the Minister of Foreign Affairs “Yerodia”, who was suspected to have committed the crime of Genocide. In this judgement the Court affirms an important principle of International Law: no diplomat can be judged or punished during the exercise of his functions, even if he is suspected of an international crime.
    The sentence affirms in particular four conditions:
    -no one can enjoy immunity if he stays in the Country of his Nationality
    -no one can enjoy immunity if the State of his nationality renounces this prerogative
    -no one can enjoy immunity after the termination of the mandate
    -the diplomat in charge can always be judged by International criminal Tribunals (es. TPIY o CPI)

    Like

  13. Elena Francis says:

    I think that one case of exemplary dacision in a legal system could be the decision of the Court of Strasbourg,the European Court of Human Rights, known as “case Scordino”. The decision was issued in 29 march 2006 by the Grand Chamber and it is very important for his influence on the fallowing jurisprudece. This decision represented a foundamental moment in the jurisprudence of CEDU about expropriation of property. It had also an incredible influence on the italian jurisprudence, in particular constitutional jurisprudence. The case was based on Mr. Scordino’s request of a fairer compensation. The action was carried on by the heirs of the plaintiff, who asked justice on the basis of the principles of rational during of the trial and the defence and protection of property. Indeed,they denounced the violation of art.1 Protocollo n.1 (protection of property) and art.6 par.1 CEDU (right to a fair trial). Scordino asked for a higher compensation for the espropriation of his land. Eventually, the plaintiff achieved a compensation estimated on the commercial value of the land, and a sum for moral offense and for judiciary expense.
    The decision of the “case Scordino” is importiant mainly for two reasons. On one hand, it represent a case of exemplarity. Indeed, the decision gave the incitement to change the legislation about expropriaion and compensation of residential zoning. On the other hand, “case Scordino” represent the evolution of our society, in particular about property’s issues. It expresses the needs of this period and the requests of of the owners, who want their rights respected. The decision is important because it established the difference between two types of expropriation: expropriation based on “economic or social reform aim”, and expropriation based on “social utility”, which is not seen in a perspective of a ample reform, but as an isolated expropriation.

    Like

  14. Anthony J. Cacciotti says:

    Several important judgments, some of which can be considered exemplary decisions, were issued in the second half of the past century, concerning the conflict between European Law and national laws. In these particular cases the issue was about european regulations and self-executing directives (which are legal acts: art. 288, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union): the first ones become law in all member states the moment they come into force, without the requirement for any implementing measures by national authorities. Self-executing directives, way different from normal ones, -which only establish the results the states have to achieve, leaving them to choose the methods- acts like regulations when they have precise features.
    In 1964, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled that, since EU Treaties (including art. 288 TFEU) were, and still are, introduced in the italian legal system using ordinary laws, European self-executing Law had the same force of them; this meant that the eventual conflict between European Law and National Law was supposed to be solved using the «lex posteriori derogat priori» method and also that EU Law didn’t have any supremacy. We can consider this an exemplary decision because it represents the spirit of the time, the spirit of the italian doctrine in that period: they denied the primacy of the European Law in case of contrast, because member states didn’t want to give so much power to an external organization, which was born not even ten years earlier.
    1984 is the year of defining change: the Italian Constitutional Court, aligning to what the European Court of Justice had established before, ruled that, in case of conflict, EU Law had (and still has) the supremacy, the force to prevail over national laws. Now the Italian norms in contrast have to be immediately disapplied by ordinary national judges, without the necessity to be declared inconstitutional by the Italian Constitutional Court. This is an exemplary decision because, once again, represents the spirit of that time; in 1984 European Union was way more mature than before in social as well as in political and legal fields and member states had accepted to let EU Law prevail over national norms in order to better partecipate in the integration process.

    Like

  15. Flavia Guglielmi says:

    The well-known judgment of 1986 concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua can be considered an exemplary statement about the legal value of the prohibition of the use of force. The facts date back to the early eighties, when the US government was accused by Nicaragua to have used armed force against him direct, scattering mines in its territorial waters and by attacking the ports, oil installations and naval bases; the United States was also charged of having provided logistical assistance to the so-called rebels “contras”, equipping, financing them and encouraging them in their actions against the Sandinista government. They, in view of Nicaragua, had thus violated customary international law, violating their obligations under the UN Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States, as well as by the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, concluded between the two States in 1956 . This is because the US actions were intended to intimidate the Nicaraguan government, had violated the freedom of the seas and interrupted the peaceful maritime commerce and resorted to the use and threat of use of armed force, waging illegal attacks and incursions in space sea and air of another State. The United States, meanwhile, claimed the absolute legality of such operations, as conducted on the basis of collective self-defense recognized by general international law and the Charter of the United Nations. They said also that their intervention had been requested by the States of El Salvador, Costa Rica, Honduras, became victims of the actions of Nicaragua that had provided weapons to armed bands of rebels present in these countries. They finally justified their conduct also because of a legitimate humanitarian intervention in favor of the rebels, whose human rights had been repeatedly violated by the government of Nicaragua. The International Court of Justice was called to assess the extent of the principles of non-use of force and non-intervention and their exceptions in customary international law. It sought, in addition, as part of the latter, the existence of an opinio juris regarding the binding obligation of States – formulated in paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter – to refrain in their international relations use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. In assessing the intervention by the subject of the claims of Nicaragua, the Court decided that it must first consider whether there was evidence of a general right of States to intervene in support of the internal opposition in another State. In this regard, the court held, first, that the US military maneuvers were illegal, as they were a violation of the principle that prohibits the use of force. This infringement concerned, first, the assistance to the contras, covered fully in those activities attributable indirect aggression, that is accomplished by organizing armed groups or with their simple support. As to verify if such acts could be justified by the need to protect their or others’ borders from external armed intervention, by virtue of the right of individual and collective self-defense, the Court emphasized that it was necessary to be before an armed attack already launched. The United States intervened was considered even more unjustified, since the Court did not consider even the existing agreement of the Member directly involved and affected by the alleged unlawful incursions Nicaraguans. On this basis, the ICJ considered, therefore, that the US intervention was to be considered unjustified. Finally, in the passage in which he considered the justifications the US in terms of humanitarian intervention, the Court observed that there was no doubt that the provision of humanitarian aid to people of other states – whatever their political orientation – could not be regarded an illegitimate intervention or not, under any other profile, international law. But, on the charge given to Nicaragua for violating the fundamental human rights of the contras, the Court held that, where such rights were protected by international treaties, that their protection should occur in the manner provided therein and, certainly, the use of force could not be considered an appropriate method to ensure the guarantee and respect. So even from that perspective, the Court held that the argument concerning the US protection of human rights in this case could not constituted a legal justification for the actions taken by the United States. Finally, the Court enclosed the principle prohibiting the use of force representative character: on the one hand, this implies that a treaty contrary to that of the ban, such a treaty of aggression, would be insignificant in legal and illegal; on the other hand, the obligation to prohibit the use of armed force is a constraint erga omnes, that is an obligation of each State towards the international community as a whole. The most serious violations of such a requirement, this act of aggression, are considered international crimes and involve the responsibility of the State, not only against the individual victim of the act, but also to all States.

    Like

  16. Federica Rossi says:

    An exemplary judgement occurred in the Italian legal system was given by the domestic “judge of laws” in the field of third-party proceedings.
    In the 1967 the Constitutional Court declared the abolition of the section number 622 included in the procedure civil code due to a violation of the section number 9, subsections 2 and 3, of the Italian Bill of Rights, which declare the principle of equal positions among spouses.
    As a result of the unconstitutional paragraph, in no case cohabitating wives were allowed to take position against the repossession of goods enforced toward husband. Unlike the legal regulations dictated for the third-party proceeding, they could neither prove the purchase of properties, having a certain date, before the foreclosure.
    It’s possible relate this ruling to the spirit of that time and in particular connecting the examinated judegment to the women contests in support of gender equality.

    Like

  17. giulio says:

    I was thinking about a very recent case argued and submitted on the Court of Appeals of the State of Oregon, with the plaintiff respondent Johnson vs the defendant -appellant Jones. The defendant appeals an action for battery and negligence from an incident , in which defendant engaged in unprotected sex intercourse with plaintiff , without disclosing that he carries the herpes simplex virus-2, commonly known as genital herpes.Defendant and plaintiff met through an online dating website aimed at singles who are seeking a longterm relationship. During their first sexual encounter , defendant got on top of the plaintiff and initiated unprotected oral sex, by putting his penis on plaintiff’s mouth.Plaintiff panicked and became angry that defendant had not previously disclosed genital herpes to her.The Oregon Supreme Court explained that a variety of circumstances are material to determining whether a defendant has engaged in an offensive act:”Familiarities not justified by the peculiar association of the parties , must conform to the usages of the community”.So even well-intentioned acts , such as jokes with sex toys , may be actionable if they exceed the bounds of toelrable taste”.

    Like

  18. lawadminhumanities says:

    I am impressed by your comments and by your thoughts about exemplarity. Most of all, I am impressed by the large amount of examples of exemplary decisions you have given. You did a great job!
    Angela Condello

    Like

  19. Federica Politi says:

    I think that another “Exemplarity Decision” could be that of International Court of Justice 1986 about USA vs Nicaragua.
    In brief USA was accused to have attacked Nicaraguan ports and naval bases to assist Anti-Sandinisti rebels (“contras”). The Court affirms that their activity could not be considered “self-defense”. With this judgment the Court defines a STRICT INTERPRETATION of “self-defense (art. 51 Charter of the United Nations) in the sense that it is permitted only in front of an armed attack “already launched” and in respect of “principle of proportionality”. In this case they did’n respect these conditions so USA was condemned to pay damages to Nicaragua.

    Like

  20. Federica Celli says:

    An exemplary decision it could be the Pupino case. Thanks to this decision of the European Court of Justice, the Italian judge used the “incidente probatorio” and took the depositions of the children, who mrs Pupino (their teacher) used to abuse, even if the fact couldn’t allow the judge to use the depositions as an evidence because the italian law considered this possibility only if the felony contemplated is a sexual offence, which wasn’t.
    This decision represent an example of exemplary decision not only because for the first time the European Court of Justice declares the interpretation of a “decisione-quadro”, claiming the necessity to interpret the national law congruent with the European law(interpretazione conforme), but also because this happened in a field, the criminal law, where the Italy never allow the European law to interfere. Until this case the European states used to think about the criminal law as a “sovereignty” that could never be transfer to the European Court.

    Like

  21. Mattia Palatta says:

    I know this topic was already treated last week, but a few days ago there was a fundamental ruling by European Court of Human Rights which represents (in my opinion) a perfect case of exemplary decision. I’m referring to the ruling about the violence and the “facts of G8”, occurred in Genova in 2001. This decision is really exemplary, because points out the lacks and imperfections of the law (in the specific, the Italian law). To briefly summarize the facts this decision is based on: in 2001 Genova hosted the meeting of G8. This became a chance to demonstrate against the policies adopted from the leaders of the most advanced countries in the world (Italy included). But among the multitude of facts happened during this period, one is the saddest and most negative above all: the raid of police in the school dedicated to A. Diaz, where a group of people was hosted for the night. Since that moment, this episode has raised tons of criticisms and divergent opinions and, according to me, it represents the worst moment of the Italian republic recent history. But, from a legal point of view, this ruling is even more important than a “simple” condemnation for the behaving of the police forces and their leaders: it represents a crystal clear case of a negative exemplarity, because it points out the great fault of our lawmaker: the absence of the specific crime of torture (although Italy have signed several international documents where it was obliged to its introduction). This case is, for me, useful to demonstrate that exemplarity is not always aimed to underline the “pros” of a judicial system, but however it can help to improve the situation of determined system. Or, at least, we hope so.

    Like

  22. Beatriz Souza says:

    Hoping it’s not too late to answer the question, I’d like to point out some examples of exemplary decisions in two different legal systems. In the Brazilian system, the first that comes to my mind is the ADI nº 4277 (Direct Action of Constitutionality), where the Supreme Court declared that the homosexual civil union can be also seen as “familiar entity”, by analogy to the heterosexual civil union. This decision represented a huge step forward, for it conferred to homosexual unions rights as adoption, pension, inheritage, special rules for taxes, and many others. If I can add, this decision was not reflecting the main thoughts of the brazilian people – we still have to remedy sexual discrimination and prejudice all over the country. The decision is criticized precisely by that: society didn’t have the chance to mature the idea and develop a democratic debate about it. (Personally, I think that when we talk about human rights, we have to go forward no matter what).
    In the U.S system, there is the case Brown v. Board of Education (1954), where the U.S Supreme Court declared unconstitutional state laws that established separate public schools for black and white people. This unanimous decision overturned the previous case on the matter, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) – and this example shows perfectly how these exemplary cases CAN, but not always, reflects the “spirit of the time” of a generation.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s