Question

1. The Connecticut state Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution requires teachers to warn students of their right not to say anything before they can be questioned about cheating. This decision is the complete opposite of a decision reached by the Federal Court of Appeals for the circuit which includes Connecticut. Must the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals withdraw its ruling? Please explain.

2. Jack Thomas, who live in Minnesota, and Sandy Silver, who live in Oklahoma, each purchased $92,000 worth of securities at the local offices in their home states from Comprehensive Financial Stockbrokers, Inc. Comprehensive is incorporated in Maryland with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Jack and Sandy feel they were a victim of fraud perpetrated by Comprehensive and would like to sue. These two cases deal only with state issues. Discuss the accuracy of the following statements:

a. Thomas is able to sue Comprehensive in a Minnesota state trial court. Please explain.

b. Thomas can sue Comprehensive in a federal district court in Minnesota. Please explain.

c. Silver can sue Comprehensive in an Oklahoma federal district court. Please explain.

Answer 1

Solution - * In ther case of students right to say anothing we see a contradiction between State and federal law. * This results is conflict. thes conflicts 88 not an explicie conflict but xather a conflict of sights. * In another way there a conflict between State and federal laws, usually the supremacy is clause federal caus applied and prevail. * whatever the question is about sights, the law which provides more signt to the individuals prevall. on the scenario, teachers warning the Students can be analogoue to the Miranda Oight or criminal system. * This means that the connecticut law provides more rights to the individuals and is une with 5th Amendment it allows Stcorente noe to self- Incoimivate thus the connecticut State supreme court ruling will overoule the federal ascult Ccciot of Appeals *