Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
The condition of being under the age of legal majority. A lawyer must maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with a client whose capacity is diminished because of minority. A minority period counts as part of a life for purposes of measuring the duration of certain future interests in property.
A group differing in race or other characteristic from the numerical majority and sometimes treated differently as a result. Affirmative action programs for minority contractors must rest on a strong evidentiary basis of specific past discrimination. Redistricting plans that concentrate minority voters are subject to strict scrutiny when race predominates.
The condition of being under the age of legal majority. A lawyer must maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with a client whose capacity is diminished because of minority. A minority period counts as part of a life for purposes of measuring the duration of certain future interests in property.
1 common questions
When a client's capacity is diminished because of minority the lawyer must maintain a normal client lawyer relationship as far as reasonably possible.
A group differing in race or other characteristic from the numerical majority and sometimes treated differently as a result. Affirmative action programs for minority contractors must rest on a strong evidentiary basis of specific past discrimination. Redistricting plans that concentrate minority voters are subject to strict scrutiny when race predominates.
Madison Meyers owns a construction firm. The city awards contracts with a racial set aside for minority contractors. Because the program rests only on general societal discrimination rather than identified past discrimination in the local industry the set aside fails strict scrutiny.
The position or rule followed by the smaller number of jurisdictions or courts. A minority of courts limits misdemeanor manslaughter to malum in se offenses. A minority of jurisdictions imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force even inside the home.
Monica Morgan contracts to buy a home from Meridian Motors. Before closing a fire destroys the house. Under the minority rule still followed in her state the risk remains on the seller until deed delivery so Monica may rescind the contract without liability.
Mustafa Mahmoud commits a regulatory misdemeanor that is not malum in se and a death results. In the minority of jurisdictions that restrict misdemeanor manslaughter to malum in se offenses he cannot be convicted of manslaughter on these facts.
The position or rule followed by the smaller number of jurisdictions or courts. A minority of courts limits misdemeanor manslaughter to malum in se offenses. A minority of jurisdictions imposes a duty to retreat before using deadly force even inside the home.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Maurice Marshall challenges a redistricting plan that draws bizarrely shaped districts to maximize majority minority districts. Because race predominated over traditional districting principles the plan is subject to strict scrutiny and fails for lack of a compelling interest.
2 common questions
The program must rest on a strong basis in evidence of specific past discrimination in the relevant industry and jurisdiction rather than general societal discrimination.
The plan triggers strict scrutiny when race is the predominant factor subordinating traditional districting principles such as compactness and contiguity.
Marco Marquez offers expert testimony resting on a methodology accepted by only a recognized minority of scientists. The court finds the showing insufficient because the experts failed to demonstrate that the method follows the scientific method practiced by at least that minority.
Two minors brought suit against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, claiming they suffered limb reduction birth defects because their mothers had taken Bendectin, a drug prescribed for morning sickness to about 17.5 million pregnant women in the United States between 1957 and 1982. Limb reduction defects occur in fewer than one birth out of every 1000. Scientists do not know the mechanism by which any teratogen causes such defects. The plaintiffs offered testimony from three groups of experts. One group proposed to testify to a statistical link between Bendectin ingestion during pregnancy and limb reduction defects based on reanalyses of published studies that had reported no such association. A second group proposed to testify that Bendectin causes limb reduction defects in humans because it causes such defects in laboratory animals. A third group proposed to testify based on the similarity of Bendectin's chemical structure to other drugs suspected of causing birth defects. The district court granted summary judgment to Merrell Dow after excluding the plaintiffs' expert testimony. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded for consideration under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. On remand, the Ninth Circuit examined the affidavits and prior trial testimony of the plaintiffs' experts. None of the experts had studied the effect of Bendectin on limb reduction defects before being hired to testify in this or related cases. None had published his work on Bendectin in a scientific journal. The only review their work had received was by judges and juries. Plaintiffs' epidemiological experts made vague assertions of a statistically significant relationship between Bendectin and birth defects but did not state that the relative risk exceeded two. With the exception of Dr. Palmer, the remaining experts were willing to testify only that Bendectin is capable of causing birth defects. Dr. Palmer alone was willing to testify that Bendectin did cause the limb defects in each of the children, based on his review of the plaintiffs' medical records and his conclusion that Bendectin is a teratogen.
View caseMarcus Mitchell challenges a statute criminalizing private consensual sodomy. The Court notes that the view once held by a minority of states has become the prevailing position and the law cannot stand under the Equal Protection Clause.
In Houston, Texas, officers of the Harris County Police Department were dispatched to a private residence in response to a reported weapons disturbance. They entered an apartment where one of the petitioners, John Geddes Lawrence, resided. The officers observed Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a sexual act. The two petitioners were arrested, held in custody overnight, and charged and convicted before a Justice of the Peace. The complaints described their crime as "deviate sexual intercourse, namely anal sex, with a member of the same sex (man)." Texas Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a) (2003) provides that a person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex. The statute defines deviate sexual intercourse as any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, or the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object. The petitioners exercised their right to a trial de novo in Harris County Criminal Court. They challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of a like provision of the Texas Constitution. Those contentions were rejected. The petitioners, having entered a plea of nolo contendere, were each fined $200 and assessed court costs of $141.25. The Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District considered the petitioners' federal constitutional arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. After hearing the case en banc the court, in a divided opinion, rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. The majority opinion indicates that the Court of Appeals considered our decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), to be controlling on the federal due process aspect of the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider three questions. The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. Their conduct was in private and consensual.
View case2 common questions
Under the minority rule risk remains on the seller until deed delivery so the buyer may rescind without liability when the property is destroyed before closing.
A minority of courts restrict misdemeanor manslaughter to cases in which the underlying misdemeanor is malum in se.
…came to see marriage in a way that could be extended to such couples. Until recently, this new view of marriage remained a minority position. After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2003 interpreted its State Constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriage, many States—including the four at issue…