List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court
Encyclopedia
This is a chronological list of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
during the tenure of Chief Justice
Chief Justice of the United States
The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the United States federal court system and the chief judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice is one of nine Supreme Court justices; the other eight are the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States...
Earl Warren
Earl Warren
Earl Warren was the 14th Chief Justice of the United States.He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring...
(5 October 1953 through 23 June 1969), a period better known as the Warren Court
Warren Court
The Warren Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States between 1953 and 1969, when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents...
.
| Case name | Citation | Summary |- |
Beginning of active duty of Chief Justice Earl Warren Earl Warren Earl Warren was the 14th Chief Justice of the United States.He is known for the sweeping decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and transformed many areas of American law, especially regarding the rights of the accused, ending public-school-sponsored prayer, and requiring... , October 5, 1953 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Toolson v. New York Yankees Toolson v. New York Yankees Toolson v. New York Yankees is a 1953 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld, 7–2, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball three decades earlier in Federal Baseball Club v. National League... |
baseball antitrust exemption upheld | ||||
| Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland In Miller Brothers Co. v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 340 , the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a mail order reseller was not required to collect sales tax unless it had sufficient contact with the state.-Background:... |
use tax imposed by one state against merchant in another state violated Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment | ||||
| Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which... of Topeka Topeka, Kansas Topeka |Kansa]]: Tó Pee Kuh) is the capital city of the U.S. state of Kansas and the county seat of Shawnee County. It is situated along the Kansas River in the central part of Shawnee County, located in northeast Kansas, in the Central United States. As of the 2010 census, the city population was... |
segregation, "separate ... inherently unequal" | ||||
| Hernandez v. Texas Hernandez v. Texas Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.... |
application of the Fourteenth Amendment to Mexican Americans | ||||
| Bolling v. Sharpe Bolling v. Sharpe Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S... |
segregation in the District of Columbia | ||||
| United States v. Harriss United States v. Harriss United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.-Proceedings and outcome:Lobbyists challenged the Regulation of Lobbying Act for being unconstitutionally vague and unclear... |
constitutionality of The Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946 | ||||
| Berman v. Parker Berman v. Parker Berman v. Parker, is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court voted 8-0, holding... |
eminent domain, takings | ||||
| United States v. International Boxing Club of New York United States v. International Boxing Club of New York United States v. International Boxing Club of New York , often referred to as International Boxing Club or just International Boxing, was an antitrust decision of the U.S. Supreme Court... |
boxing not exempt from antitrust regulation | ||||
| Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 is a United States Supreme Court case involving a suit by the Tee-Hit-Ton, a subgroup of the Tlingit people. The Tee-Hit-Ton sought compensation for lumber taken from lands they occupied from Congress... |
Federal government did not owe Indian tribe Indian tribe In the United States, a Native American tribe is any extant or historical tribe, band, nation, or other group or community of Indigenous peoples in the United States... compensation for timber Timber Timber may refer to:* Timber, a term common in the United Kingdom and Australia for wood materials * Timber, Oregon, an unincorporated community in the U.S... taken from tribal-occupied lands in Alaska Alaska Alaska is the largest state in the United States by area. It is situated in the northwest extremity of the North American continent, with Canada to the east, the Arctic Ocean to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the west and south, with Russia further west across the Bering Strait... under the 5th Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... |
||||
| Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., , was an important income tax case before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held as follows:... |
definition of taxable income Taxable income Taxable income refers to the base upon which an income tax system imposes tax. Generally, it includes some or all items of income and is reduced by expenses and other deductions. The amounts included as income, expenses, and other deductions vary by country or system. Many systems provide that... |
||||
| Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that state laws regulating business will only be subject to rational basis review, and that the Court need not contemplate all possible reasons for legislation.-Background:The optician... |
Due Process Clause, economic liberties | ||||
| Griffin v. Illinois Griffin v. Illinois Griffin v. Illinois, , was a case in which United States Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be denied the right to appeal due to inability to pay for a trial transcript.-Facts:... |
access to court transcript for indigent appeals | ||||
| Radovich v. National Football League Radovich v. National Football League Radovich v. National Football League , , is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that professional football, unlike professional baseball, was subject to antitrust laws... |
professional football covered by antitrust laws | ||||
| Reid v. Covert Reid v. Covert Reid v. Covert, , is a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate... |
treaty Treaty A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms... power, right to jury trial |
||||
| Watkins v. United States Watkins v. United States Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 , was a case brought to the Supreme Court of the United States after John Watkins was convicted under , for failing to answer questions while posed as a witness relating to people he may have known to be communist... |
rights of a witness in refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee House Un-American Activities Committee The House Committee on Un-American Activities or House Un-American Activities Committee was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security"... |
||||
| Yates v. United States Yates v. United States Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving free speech and congressional power... |
free speech, distinction between expression of opinion and advocacy of action | ||||
| Roth v. United States Roth v. United States Roth v. United States, , along with its companion case, Alberts v. California, was a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.- Prior history :Under the common... |
obscenity | ||||
| Conley v. Gibson Conley v. Gibson Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that provided a basis for a broad reading of the "short plain statement" requirement for pleading under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.... |
liberal pleading standards under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has 7 months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the... |
||||
| McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 , was a case following in the line of decisions interpreting International Shoe v. Washington. The Court declared that California did not violate the Due Process Clause by entering a judgment upon a Texas insurance company who was engaged in... |
California did not violate the Due Process Clause when entering a binding judgment on a Texas corporation with "substantial connection[s]" to California | ||||
| Lambert v. California Lambert v. California Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the acceptability of ignorance of the law as an excuse for a crime. The court held that in order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the... |
mens rea Mens rea Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty... and ignorance of the law Ignorantia juris non excusat Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content... |
||||
| One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. ONE, Inc., a spinoff of the Mattachine Society, published the early pro-gay "ONE: The Homosexual Magazine" beginning in 1953. After a campaign of harassment from the U.S... |
pro-homosexual writings and the Comstock laws | ||||
| Perez v. Brownell Perez v. Brownell Perez v. Brownell, , was a United States Supreme Court decision which affirmed Congress's right to revoke United States citizenship as a result of a citizen's voluntary performance of specified actions, even in the absence of any intent or desire on the person's part to lose his or her citizenship... |
revocation of citizenship for voting in a foreign election | ||||
| Trop v. Dulles Trop v. Dulles Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 , was a federal case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that it was unconstitutional for the government to revoke the citizenship of a U.S... |
Eighth Amendment, loss of citizenship | ||||
| Sherman v. United States Sherman v. United States Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369 , was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of entrapment. Unanimously, the Court overturned the conviction of a recovering New York drug addict who had been repeatedly solicited for drug sales by a fellow former addict who was working with federal... |
Entrapment Entrapment In criminal law, entrapment is conduct by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability... provisions apply to actions of government informers as well as agents |
||||
| Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., 356 U.S. 525 , decided on May 19, 1958, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that refined the doctrine regarding in what instances courts were required to follow state law.... |
application of the Erie doctrine Erie doctrine In United States law, the Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure mandating that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law.... |
||||
| Kent v. Dulles Kent v. Dulles Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116 is a landmark case on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to First Amendment free speech rights... |
right to travel, power of Secretary of State United States Secretary of State The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence... |
||||
| Societe Internationale v. Rogers Societe Internationale v. Rogers Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered whether a district court could dismiss a case based on the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's... |
appropriateness of involuntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal Involuntary dismissal is the termination of a court case despite the plaintiff's objection.In United States Federal courts, involuntary dismissal is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41.... of a case in which petitioner failed to produce records of a Swiss bank account |
||||
| NAACP v. Alabama NAACP v. Alabama National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 , was an important civil rights case brought before the United States Supreme Court.... |
freedom of association, privacy of membership lists | ||||
| Speiser v. Randall Speiser v. Randall Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case involved the State of California's refusal to grant to ACLU lawyer Lawrence Speiser, a veteran of World War II, a tax exemption because the person refused to sign a loyalty oath as required by a California law enacted in 1954... |
loyalty oaths | ||||
| Cooper v. Aaron Cooper v. Aaron Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions, and could not choose to ignore them.-Background of the case:... |
enforcement of desegregation Desegregation Desegregation is the process of ending the separation of two groups usually referring to races. This is most commonly used in reference to the United States. Desegregation was long a focus of the American Civil Rights Movement, both before and after the United States Supreme Court's decision in... , "massive resistance Massive resistance Massive resistance was a policy declared by U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr. on February 24, 1956, to unite other white politicians and leaders in Virginia in a campaign of new state laws and policies to prevent public school desegregation after the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision... " |
||||
| Cammarano v. United States Cammarano v. United States Cammarano v. United States, 358 U.S. 498 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that business may not deduct expenses they incurred for the "promotion or defeat of legislation" as "ordinary and necessary" business expenses on their federal income tax filing.... |
business expenses incurred for the "promotion or defeat of legislation" are not tax deductible | ||||
| Bartkus v. Illinois | "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy Double jeopardy Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction... ; federal and state officials may cooperate in criminal investigations |
||||
| Frank v. Maryland Frank v. Maryland Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 , was United States Supreme Court interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Frank refused to allow the health inspectors into his home citing the Fourth Amendment... |
warrantless administrative searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... |
||||
| Beacon Theatres v. Westover Beacon Theatres v. Westover Beacon Theatres v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with jury trials in civil matters... |
right to civil jury trial under the Seventh Amendment, determination of legal & equitable issues | ||||
| Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux | Abstention doctrine Abstention doctrine An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law in the United States of America might apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court... |
||||
| Barenblatt v. United States Barenblatt v. United States Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress... |
upholding conviction for refusing to answer questions before the House Un-American Activities Committee House Un-American Activities Committee The House Committee on Un-American Activities or House Un-American Activities Committee was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. In 1969, the House changed the committee's name to "House Committee on Internal Security"... against First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... challenge |
||||
| Smith v. California Smith v. California Smith v. California is a 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus... |
|||||
1960–1969
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Bates v. City of Little Rock Bates v. City of Little Rock Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment to the U.S... |
First Amendment, compelled disclosure of membership lists | |
| United States v. Raines United States v. Raines United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 was a United States Supreme Court decision relating to civil rights. The Court overturned the ruling of a U.S... |
Fifteenth Amendment, Civil Rights Act | |
| Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which determined that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to take lands owned by the Tuscarora Indian tribe by eminent domain under the Federal Power Act for a hydroelectric power... |
eminent domain Eminent domain Eminent domain , compulsory purchase , resumption/compulsory acquisition , or expropriation is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent... over Indian Native Americans in the United States Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as... lands |
|
| Flora v. United States Flora v. United States Flora v. United States, 357 U.S. 63 , aff'd on rehearing, 362 U.S. 145 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a taxpayer generally must pay the full amount of an income tax deficiency assessed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue before he may challenge its correctness... |
Pay Income Tax Then Litigate, Internal Revenue Act | |
| Dusky v. United States Dusky v. United States Dusky v. United States, , is a landmark decision affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceding to trial. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.... |
standard for adjudicative competence Adjudicative competence Adjudicative competence, also referred to as competence to stand trial, is a legal construct describing the criminal defendant's ability to understand and participate in legal proceedings. This includes the defendant's current ability to participate in various pleas and waivers of rights. It is... |
|
| Commissioner v. Duberstein Commissioner v. Duberstein Commissioner v. Duberstein, , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the exclusion of "the value of property acquired by gift" from the gross income of an income taxpayer.... |
definition of a 'gift' for taxation purposes | |
| Flemming v. Nestor Flemming v. Nestor Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 , is a Supreme Court Case in which the Court upheld the Constitutionality of Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act... |
no property right in Social Security Social Security (United States) In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program.The original Social Security Act and the current version of the Act, as amended encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs... benefits |
|
| Boynton v. Virginia Boynton v. Virginia Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case overturned a judgment convicting an African American law student for trespassing by being in a restaurant in a bus terminal which was "whites only." It held that racial segregation in public... |
racial segregation | |
| Monroe v. Pape Monroe v. Pape Monroe v. Pape, , was a United States Supreme Court case that considered the application of Federal Civil Rights law to constitutional violations by city employees.- Background :... |
municipalities cannot be held liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux... |
|
| Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court redefined the U.S. patent law doctrine of repair and reconstruction... |
doctrine of repair and reconstruction Doctrine of repair and reconstruction The doctrine of repair and reconstruction in United States patent law distinguishes between permissible repair of a patented article, which the right of an owner of property to preserve its utility and operability guarantees, and impermissible reconstruction of a patented article, which is patent... in United States patent law United States patent law United States patent law was established "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as provided by the United States Constitution. Congress implemented these... |
|
| Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority | state action | |
| Gomillion v. Lightfoot Gomillion v. Lightfoot Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that found an electoral district created to disenfranchise blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment.- Decision :... |
race-based electoral districting | |
| James v. United States | assessment of income tax Income tax An income tax is a tax levied on the income of individuals or businesses . Various income tax systems exist, with varying degrees of tax incidence. Income taxation can be progressive, proportional, or regressive. When the tax is levied on the income of companies, it is often called a corporate... on embezzled Embezzlement Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly appropriating or secreting assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted.... funds |
|
| McGowan v. Maryland McGowan v. Maryland McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose.-Background:... |
constitutionality of laws with religious origins but secular purposes | |
| Braunfeld v. Brown Braunfeld v. Brown Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that a Pennsylvania law forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the First Amendment to... |
constitutionality of Sabbath laws requiring Sunday closure of stores | |
| Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc. Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Super Market of Massachusetts, Inc., , is a United States Supreme Court case that declared that a kosher butcher store had to abide by the state laws that banned them from selling on Sunday.-Background:... |
Massachusetts Massachusetts The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a state in the New England region of the northeastern United States of America. It is bordered by Rhode Island and Connecticut to the south, New York to the west, and Vermont and New Hampshire to the north; at its east lies the Atlantic Ocean. As of the 2010... blue law Blue law A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States and, formerly, in Canada, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping... s upheld against challenge by Kosher Kashrut Kashrut is the set of Jewish dietary laws. Food in accord with halakha is termed kosher in English, from the Ashkenazi pronunciation of the Hebrew term kashér , meaning "fit" Kashrut (also kashruth or kashrus) is the set of Jewish dietary laws. Food in accord with halakha (Jewish law) is termed... grocery store |
|
| Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co. Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co. Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case.Jarecki is an example of the maxim noscitur a sociis—a word is known by the company it keeps. The Court noted that noscitur a sociis is not an inescapable rule. It further noted that the maxim is often wisely applied... |
using noscitur a sociis to interpret the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 | |
| Torcaso v. Watkins Torcaso v. Watkins Torcaso v. Watkins, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.-Background:In the early... |
oaths, religious test, First Amendment | |
| Poe v. Ullman Poe v. Ullman Poe v. Ullman, , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, and banned doctors from advising their use, because the law had never been enforced. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed... |
ripeness Ripeness In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never... to challenge statute banning contraceptives Birth control Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages. Birth control techniques and methods include contraception , contragestion and abortion... |
|
| Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio, , was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as... |
search and seizure, exclusionary rule | |
| Marcus v. Search Warrant Marcus v. Search Warrant Marcus v. Search Warrant, , full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an in rem case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials... |
Procedural burden on state in seizure of obscene material | |
| Hamilton v. Alabama Hamilton v. Alabama Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Hamilton was charged in an Alabama court with breaking and entering a dwelling at night with intent to ravish, and had pleaded not guilty. He had then been convicted and sentenced to death... |
Absence of defendant's counsel at the time of his arraignment Arraignment Arraignment is a formal reading of a criminal complaint in the presence of the defendant to inform the defendant of the charges against him or her. In response to arraignment, the accused is expected to enter a plea... violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment |
|
| Hoyt v. Florida Hoyt v. Florida Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 , was an appeal by Gwendolyn Hoyt, who had killed her husband and received a jail sentence for second degree murder... |
all-male jury in a woman's murder trial did not violate Fourteenth Amendment | |
| Oyler v. Boles Oyler v. Boles Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States.-Syllabus:A West Virginia habitual criminal statute provided for a mandatory life sentence upon the third conviction "of a crime punishable by confinement in a penitentiary." The increased penalty is to be... |
habitual criminal Habitual offender A habitual offender is a person who has repeatedly committed the same crime. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions... sentencing and due process Due process Due process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it... |
|
| Fong Foo v. United States Fong Foo v. United States Fong Foo v. United States, , was a Supreme Court ruling that upheld the protection from Double Jeopardy by the federal government. While the protection from double jeopardy did not get incorporated to apply to the state governments until 1969 Fong Foo v. United States, , was a Supreme Court ruling... |
double jeopardy against federal courts | |
| Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases... |
reapportionment issues | |
| Goldblatt v. Hempstead | due process, takings clause, safety regulations | |
| Engel v. Vitale Engel v. Vitale Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.... |
school prayer | |
| Manual Enterprises v. Day MANual Enterprises v. Day MANual Enterprises v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not obscene within the meaning of... |
magazine containing nude photographs Nude photography Nude photography is a style of art photography which depicts the nude human body as a study. Nude photography should be distinguished from glamour photography, which places more emphasis on the model and her/his sexuality, and treats the model as the primary subject. Nude photography should also be... of men not considered obscene Obscenity An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious... |
|
| Jones v. Cunningham Jones v. Cunningham Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 was a Supreme Court case in which the court first ruled that state inmates had the right to file a writ of habeas corpus challenging both the legality and the conditions of their imprisonment. Prior to this, starting with Pervear v... |
state prison inmates have the right to petition for habeas corpus Habeas corpus is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations... |
|
| Wong Sun v. United States Wong Sun v. United States Wong Sun v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court decision excluding the presentation of verbal evidence and recovered narcotics where they were both fruits of an illegal entry. Narcotics agents unlawfully entered Toy's laundry at which point Toy indicated that Yee was selling... |
fruit of the poisonous tree Fruit of the poisonous tree Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence is tainted, then anything gained from it is as well.Such evidence is not generally admissible in court... doctrine in a narcotics Illegal drug trade The illegal drug trade is a global black market, dedicated to cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of those substances which are subject to drug prohibition laws. Most jurisdictions prohibit trade, except under license, of many types of drugs by drug prohibition laws.A UN report said the... case |
|
| Schlude v. Commissioner Schlude v. Commissioner Schlude v. Commissioner, 372 U.S. 128 , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that, under the accrual method, taxpayers must include as income in a particular year advance payments by way of cash, negotiable notes, and contract installments falling due but... |
what income must be included for income tax Income tax in the United States In the United States, a tax is imposed on income by the Federal, most states, and many local governments. The income tax is determined by applying a tax rate, which may increase as income increases, to taxable income as defined. Individuals and corporations are directly taxable, and estates and... purposes when accrual method of accounting Comparison of Cash Method and Accrual Method of accounting The two primary accounting methods of the cash and the accruals basis are used to calculate US public debt, as well as taxable income for U.S. federal income taxes and other income taxes... is used |
|
| Edwards v. South Carolina Edwards v. South Carolina Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S... |
First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... , protest marches at state capital |
|
| Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon v. Wainwright Gideon v. Wainwright, , is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own... |
right to counsel | |
| Douglas v. California Douglas v. California Douglas v. California, , was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Facts:Two defendants were tried and convicted in a California state court on felony charges including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to commit murder.A single public defender had been... |
Fourteenth Amendment; right of poor defendants to criminal court appeals | |
| Gray v. Sanders Gray v. Sanders Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 , was a Supreme Court of the United States case dealing with equal representation in regard to the American election system and formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard for legislative districting.... |
“one man, one vote” | |
| Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, 372 U.S. 539 , was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that legislative committee cannot compel a subpoenaed witness to give up the membership lists of his organization.-External... |
requiring person divulge information contained in an organization's membership lists violates freedom of association Freedom of association Freedom of association is the individual right to come together with other individuals and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.... under First Amendment First Amendment to the United States Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering... |
|
| Ferguson v. Skrupa Ferguson v. Skrupa Ferguson v. Skrupa was a case before the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting debt adjustment.-Background:... |
substantive due process, economic liberties | |
| Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United... |
exculpatory evidence Evidence (law) The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence... and due process |
|
| Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul In Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132 , the Supreme Court of the United States declined to invalidate a California law that imposed minimum maturity standards on avocados sold in the state, including those imported from other states. The law prohibited the retail sale of... |
Preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... , Dormant Commerce Clause Dormant Commerce Clause The "Dormant" Commerce Clause, also known as the "Negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that courts in the United States have inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution... |
|
| Silver v. New York Stock Exchange Silver v. New York Stock Exchange Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, , was a case of the United States Supreme Court which was decided May 20, 1963. It held that the duty of self-regulation imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not exempt it from the antitrust laws nor justify it in... |
duty of self-regulation Self-regulatory organization A self-regulatory organization is an organization that exercises some degree of regulatory authority over an industry or profession. The regulatory authority could be applied in addition to some form of government regulation, or it could fill the vacuum of an absence of government oversight and... imposed upon the New York Stock Exchange New York Stock Exchange The New York Stock Exchange is a stock exchange located at 11 Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, New York City, USA. It is by far the world's largest stock exchange by market capitalization of its listed companies at 13.39 trillion as of Dec 2010... by the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Securities Exchange Act of 1934 The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 , , codified at et seq., is a law governing the secondary trading of securities in the United States of America. It was a sweeping piece of legislation... did not exempt it from the antitrust laws |
|
| Ker v. California Ker v. California Ker v. California, , was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5-4.-Prior history:... |
incorporation of the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... protections against unreasonable search & seizure against the states |
|
| Abington School District v. Schempp Abington School District v. Schempp Abington Township School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963... |
constitutionality of mandatory bible reading in public schools | |
| Sherbert v. Verner Sherbert v. Verner Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required that government demonstrate a compelling government interest before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her... |
strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or... for religiously-based discrimination in unemployment compensation |
|
| England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that refined the procedures for U.S. federal courts to abstain from deciding issues of state law, pursuant to the doctrine set forth in Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496... |
refining procedures for Pullman abstention Abstention doctrine An abstention doctrine is any of several doctrines that a court of law in the United States of America might apply to refuse to hear a case, when hearing the case would potentially intrude upon the powers of another court... from deciding issues of state law |
|
| Wesberry v. Sanders Wesberry v. Sanders Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving U.S. Congressional districts in the state of Georgia. The Court issued its ruling on February 17, 1964. This decision requires each state to draw its U.S... |
“one man, one vote” | |
| Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., is a 1964 United States Supreme Court decision that was a companion case to Sears v. Stiffel, which the Court decided on the same day... |
preemption Federal preemption Federal preemption refers to the invalidation of US state law when it conflicts with Federal law.-Constitutional basis:According to the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,... of state unfair competition Unfair competition Unfair competition in a sense means that the competitors compete on unequal terms, because favourable or disadvantageous conditions are applied to some competitors but not to others; or that the actions of some competitors actively harm the position of others with respect to their ability to... laws which restrict sale of unpatented items |
|
| Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 , was a United States Supreme Court case which limited state law on unfair competition when it prevents the copying of an item that is not covered by a patent.... |
preemption of state unfair competition Unfair competition Unfair competition in a sense means that the competitors compete on unequal terms, because favourable or disadvantageous conditions are applied to some competitors but not to others; or that the actions of some competitors actively harm the position of others with respect to their ability to... laws which restrict sale of unpatented items, decided same day as Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. |
|
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 , was a United States Supreme Court case which established the actual malice standard which has to be met before press reports about public officials or public figures can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the... |
freedom of speech, libel | |
| Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398 , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the policy of United States federal courts would be to honor the Act of State Doctrine, which dictates that the propriety of decisions of other countries relating to their internal... |
jurisdiction of federal courts over acts of foreign countries; act of state doctrine Act of State Doctrine The Act of State Doctrine says that a nation is sovereign within its own borders, and its domestic actions may not be questioned in the courts of another nation.-United States:... |
|
| Schneider v. Rusk Schneider v. Rusk Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 , was a United States Supreme Court case which invalidated a law that treated naturalized and native-born citizens differentially under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.-Background:... |
Naturalized U.S. citizens have the right to return to and reside in their native countries, and retain their U.S. citizenship, even if they never return to the United States | |
| Massiah v. United States Massiah v. United States Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from eliciting statements from the defendant about themselves after the point that the Sixth Amendment right... |
Sixth Amendment Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions... prohibition on police speaking to suspect represented by counsel |
|
| Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County | closing the local school and giving white students vouchers to attend schools outside of the county was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause | |
| Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther Wilbur-Ellis Co. v. Kuther, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the repair-reconstruction doctrine of Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. to enhancement of function.- Background :... |
extension of doctrine of repair and reconstruction Doctrine of repair and reconstruction The doctrine of repair and reconstruction in United States patent law distinguishes between permissible repair of a patented article, which the right of an owner of property to preserve its utility and operability guarantees, and impermissible reconstruction of a patented article, which is patent... to enhancement of device's function |
|
| Reynolds v. Sims Reynolds v. Sims Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.-Facts:... |
“one man, one vote” (state senates) | |
| Malloy v. Hogan Malloy v. Hogan Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts... |
Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... right against self-incrimination was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts |
|
| Griffin v. Maryland Griffin v. Maryland Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of five African Americans who were arrested during a protest of a privately owned amusement park by a park employee who was also a deputy sheriff... |
segregation protests | |
| Barr v. City of Columbia Barr v. City of Columbia Barr v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 146 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of five African Americans who were refused service at a lunch counter of a department store based upon a prior Court decision, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support... |
due process and ex post facto law Ex post facto law An ex post facto law or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law... |
|
| Robinson v. Florida Robinson v. Florida Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of several white and African American persons who were refused service at a restaurant based upon a prior Court decision, holding that a Florida regulation requiring a restaurant... |
segregation protests | |
| Jacobellis v. Ohio Jacobellis v. Ohio Jacobellis v. Ohio, , was a United States Supreme Court decision handed down in 1964 involving whether the state of Ohio could, consistent with the First Amendment, ban the showing of a French film called The Lovers which the state had deemed obscene.Nico Jacobellis, manager of the Heights Art... |
"I know [obscenity] when I see it[.]" – Justice Potter Stewart | |
| Quantity of Books v. Kansas Quantity of Books v. Kansas Quantity of Books v. Kansas, is an in rem United States Supreme Court decision on First Amendment questions relating to the forfeiture of obscene material... |
Seizure of allegedly obscene materials requires prior adversary hearing | |
| Bell v. Maryland Bell v. Maryland Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226 , provided an opportunity for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether racial discrimination in the provision of public accommodations by a privately-owned restaurant violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the... |
segregation protests | |
| Bouie v. City of Columbia Bouie v. City of Columbia Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that due process prohibits retroactive application of any judicial construction of a criminal statute that is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior... |
due process and ex post facto law Ex post facto law An ex post facto law or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law... |
|
| United States v. Continental Can Co. United States v. Continental Can Co. United States v. Continental Can Co., , was a U.S. Supreme Court case which addressed antitrust issues. One issue it addressed was how should a market segment be defined for purposes of reviewing a merger of companies which manufacture different but related products.-Background:In 1956, Continental... |
antitrust Antitrust The United States antitrust law is a body of laws that prohibits anti-competitive behavior and unfair business practices. Antitrust laws are intended to encourage competition in the marketplace. These competition laws make illegal certain practices deemed to hurt businesses or consumers or both,... |
|
| Escobedo v. Illinois Escobedo v. Illinois Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v... |
right to remain silent | |
| Cooper v. Pate Cooper v. Pate Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled for the first time that state prison inmates have the standing to sue in federal court to address their grievances under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This case followed Jones v... |
The court ruled for the first time that state prison inmates have the standing Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case... to sue in federal court to address their grievances under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 Civil Rights Act of 1871 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, , enacted April 20, 1871, is a federal law in force in the United States. The Act was originally enacted a few years after the American Civil War, along with the 1870 Force Act. One of the chief reasons for its passage was to protect southern blacks from the Ku Klux... . |
|
| Beck v. Ohio Beck v. Ohio Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the police arrested the defendant without probable cause, and therefore the evidence found on his person after taking him to the police station were found as part of an unconstitutional search.-Facts:A tip was given... |
probable cause Probable cause In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which an officer or agent of the law has the grounds to make an arrest, to conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest, etc. when criminal charges are being considered. It is also used to refer to the... and searches incident to a lawful arrest Searches incident to a lawful arrest In most cases, a search warrant is required to perform a lawful search. An long-recognized exception to this requirement is searches incident to a lawful arrest. This rule permits an officer to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest... |
|
| McLaughlin v. Florida McLaughlin v. Florida McLaughlin v. Florida 379 U.S. 184 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a cohabitation law of Florida, part of the state's anti-miscegenation laws, was unconstitutional. The law prohibited habitual cohabitation by two unmarried people of opposite sex, if one... |
striking down an anti-miscegenation law aimed at prevent cohabitation Cohabitation Cohabitation usually refers to an arrangement whereby two people decide to live together on a long-term or permanent basis in an emotionally and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is most frequently applied to couples who are not married... of interracial couples |
|
| Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause power to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.- Background :This important case... |
interstate commerce, civil rights, public accommodations | |
| Katzenbach v. McClung Katzenbach v. McClung Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce... |
civil rights and interstate commerce, decided same day as Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause power to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.- Background :This important case... |
|
| Stanford v. Texas Stanford v. Texas Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 , is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It stated in clear terms that, pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment rules regarding search and seizure applied to state governments. While this principle had been outlined in other... |
Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Unconstitutionality of State issued general warrants | |
| Cox v. Louisiana Cox v. Louisiana Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 , was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that a state government cannot employ "breach of the peace" statutes against protesters engaging in peaceable demonstrations that may potentially incite... |
First Amendment, "breach of the peace" statutes | |
| Freedman v. Maryland Freedman v. Maryland Freedman v. Maryland, , is a United States Supreme Court case that ended government-operated rating boards with a decision that a rating board could only approve a film and had no power to ban a film. The ruling also concluded that a rating board must either approve a film within a reasonable time,... |
First Amendment, motion picture censorship | |
| United States v. Seeger United States v. Seeger United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the exemption from the military draft for conscientious objectors could not be reserved only for those professing conformity with the moral directives of a supreme being, but also for those whose... |
definition of religion for a military draft exemption | |
| Swain v. Alabama Swain v. Alabama Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , was a case heard before the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the legality of a struck jury.... |
use of struck jury Struck jury A struck jury is a multi-step process of selecting a jury from a pool. First potential jurors are eliminated for hardship. Second jurors are eliminated for cause by conducting voir dire until there is a pool available that is exactly the size of the final jury plus the number of peremptory... |
|
| Hanna v. Plumer Hanna v. Plumer Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court further refined the Erie doctrine regarding when and by what means federal courts are obliged to apply state law in cases brought under diversity jurisdiction... |
interpretation of the Erie doctrine Erie doctrine In United States law, the Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure mandating that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law.... , Civil Procedure Civil procedure Civil procedure is the body of law that sets out the rules and standards that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits... |
|
| Dombrowski v. Pfister Dombrowski v. Pfister Dombrowski v. Pfister was a landmark Supreme Court case brought forth by Dr. James Dombrowski along with William Kunstler, founder of the Center for Constitutional Rights, against the governor of Louisiana, law enforcement officers, and the chairperson of the state's Legislative Joint Committee... |
federal injunction Injunction An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions... against state criminal trial for subversion Subversion (politics) Subversion refers to an attempt to transform the established social order, its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy; examples of such structures include the State. In this context, a "subversive" is sometimes called a "traitor" with respect to the government in-power. A subversive is... |
|
| Harman v. Forssenius Harman v. Forssenius Harman v. Forssenius, was a 1965 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that Virginia's law partially eliminating the poll tax violated the Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution... |
Virginia's partial repeal of the poll tax Poll tax A poll tax is a tax of a portioned, fixed amount per individual in accordance with the census . When a corvée is commuted for cash payment, in effect it becomes a poll tax... violated 24th Amendment Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax... |
|
| Griffin v. California Griffin v. California Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, by a 6-2 vote, that it is a violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights for the prosecutor to comment to the jury on the defendant's declining to testify, or for the judge to instruct the... |
prosecutor commenting on a defendant's refusal to testify violates the defendant's Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... rights |
|
| One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania was a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1965. The Court ruled that civil forfeiture could not apply where the evidence used to invoke the forfeiture was obtained illegally.... |
evidence Evidence (law) The law of evidence encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence can be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision and, sometimes, the weight that may be given to that evidence... that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... may not be relied on to sustain a civil forfeiture Asset forfeiture Asset forfeiture is confiscation, by the State, of assets which are either the alleged proceeds of crime or the alleged instrumentalities of crime, and more recently, alleged terrorism. Instrumentalities of crime are property that was allegedly used to facilitate crime, for example cars... |
|
| Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut Griswold v. Connecticut, , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives... |
privacy, birth control | |
| Estes v. Texas Estes v. Texas Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the swindling conviction of petitioner Billy Sol Estes, holding that his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated by the publicity associated with the pretrial hearing, which had been... |
overturning Billy Sol Estes conviction on 14th Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... due process grounds due to pretrial publicity |
|
| Lamont v. Postmaster General Lamont v. Postmaster General Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 , was a landmark First Amendment Supreme Court case, in which the ruling of the Supreme Court struck down § 305 of the Postal Service and Federal Employees Salary Act of 1962a federal statute requiring the Postmaster General to detain and deliver only upon... |
Declared unconstitutional a Federal statute requiring that addressees of "Communist political propaganda" affirmatively indicate their request to receive such mailings | |
| Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on November 15, 1965 that persons believed to be members of the Communist Party of the United States of America could not be required to register as party members with the Subversive... |
Communist Party of the United States of America members could not be required to register with the government under the Fifth Amendment | |
| Graham v. John Deere Co. Graham v. John Deere Co. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the nonobviousness requirement in United States patent law, set forth in .-Facts and procedural history:... |
nonobviousness Inventive step and non-obviousness The inventive step and non-obviousness reflect a same general patentability requirement present in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive — i.e., non-obvious — in order to be patented.... as a condition of patentability Patentability Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent... |
|
| Baxstrom v. Herold Baxstrom v. Herold Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that civil commitment following a prison term did not run afoul of double jeopardy principles.-External links:*... |
Prisoners committed to civil mental institutions have a right to a hearing to determine whether or not they are in fact mentally disordered. | |
| Brown v. Louisiana Brown v. Louisiana Brown v. Louisiana, , was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library. Justice Fortas wrote the plurality opinion and was joined by... |
first amendment, right to protest | |
| South Carolina v. Katzenbach South Carolina v. Katzenbach South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the... |
Voting Rights Act Voting Rights Act The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S.... , Fifteenth Amendment |
|
| Memoirs v. Massachusetts | obscenity | |
| Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, , was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment... |
poll tax Poll tax A poll tax is a tax of a portioned, fixed amount per individual in accordance with the census . When a corvée is commuted for cash payment, in effect it becomes a poll tax... es are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"... |
|
| United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus... |
federal court jurisdiction over pendent claims | |
| United States v. Price United States v. Price United States v. Cecil Price, et al. , also known as the "Mississippi Burning trial" , was one of the most famous criminal trials in American history... |
the Mississippi civil rights workers murders | |
| Sheppard v. Maxwell Sheppard v. Maxwell Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , was a United States Supreme Court case that examined the rights of freedom of the press as outlined in the 1st Amendment when weighed against a defendant's right to a fair trial as required by the 6th Amendment... |
the Sam Sheppard Sam Sheppard Dr. Samuel Holmes Sheppard was an American osteopathic physician and neurosurgeon, who was involved in an infamous and controversial murder trial. He was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife, Marilyn Reese Sheppard, in 1954, while residing in the Cleveland, Ohio area. Sheppard served... case, defendant's right to a fair trial Right to a fair trial The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided.... vs. freedom of the press Freedom of the press Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials... |
|
| Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona Miranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant... |
self-incrimination (“right to remain silent”) | |
| Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. FTC v. Dean Foods Co, , is a 1966 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission may sue in federal court to obtain a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo against the consummation of a merger that the agency persuasively contends violates the... |
federal agencies can use the All Writs Act All Writs Act The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at , which authorizes the United States federal courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law".... to seek an injunction Injunction An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing certain acts. A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties and may have to pay damages or accept sanctions... against a threatened action that will substantially interfere with the agency’s performance of its statutory duty |
|
| Katzenbach v. Morgan Katzenbach v. Morgan Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws which enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.- Facts :... |
voting rights, Section 5 power | |
| Schmerber v. California Schmerber v. California Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a State may, over the suspect's protest, have a physician extract blood from a person suspected of drunken driving without violating the suspect's Fifth Amendment to the United States... |
state can take blood sample Blood Sample Blood Sample is the 10th studio album by the Finnish avant-garde progressive metal band Waltari.-Track listing:# "Helsinki" - 5:53# "Not Enough" - 3:35# "Too Much Emptiness" - 2:30# "Never" - 4:01# "New York" - 3:48# "I'm in Pain" - 4:38... from a suspect without his consent, without violating his Fourth Amendment Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause... rights |
|
| Garrity v. New Jersey Garrity v. New Jersey Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that law enforcement officers and other public employees have the right to be free from compulsory self-incrimination... |
rights of police officers against self-incrimination Self-incrimination Self-incrimination is the act of accusing oneself of a crime for which a person can then be prosecuted. Self-incrimination can occur either directly or indirectly: directly, by means of interrogation where information of a self-incriminatory nature is disclosed; indirectly, when information of a... |
|
| Whitus v. Georgia Whitus v. Georgia Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 , found in favor of the plaintiff , who had been convicted for murder, and as such reversed their convictions... |
racial discrimination in jury selection Jury selection Jury selection are many methods used to choose the people who will serve on a trial jury. The jury pool is first selected from among the community using a reasonably random method. The prospective jurors are then questioned in court by the judge and/or attorneys... |
|
| Redrup v. New York Redrup v. New York Redrup v. New York, was a May 8, 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, widely regarded as the end of American censorship of written fiction. Robert Redrup was a Times Square newsstand clerk who sold two of William Hamling's Greenleaf Classics paperback pulp sex novels, Lust Pool... |
striking down state power to censor written works of fiction | |
| In Re Gault In Re Gault In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the... |
due process, juveniles | |
| Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. Abbott Laboratories held that drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging a U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to... |
reviewability of administrative decisions | |
| Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. Gardner, , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It held that judicial review of a regulation's validity was inappropriate because the controversy was not ripe for adjudication, in that it was not clear whether or when an inspection would be... |
ripeness Ripeness In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never... in the context of judicial review of administrative decisions |
|
| Afroyim v. Rusk Afroyim v. Rusk Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that a person born or naturalized in the United States cannot be deprived of his or her citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of a man... |
federal government cannot strip a person of his citizenship | |
| Reitman v. Mulkey Reitman v. Mulkey Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent that states could remove a constitutional amendment passed by initiative, if the proffered amendment "encouraged" racial discrimination.In 1964, pursuant to an initiative and... |
states may repeal laws providing protection against racial discrimination by Amending their state Constitution of referendum if their immediate objective is neutral and not to facilitate private racism | |
| Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia Loving v. Virginia, , was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v... |
state laws banning interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation laws Anti-miscegenation laws Anti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races... ) |
|
| Berger v. New York Berger v. New York Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.-Case:... |
Telephone tapping Telephone tapping Telephone tapping is the monitoring of telephone and Internet conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on the telephone line... in a bribery Bribery Bribery, a form of corruption, is an act implying money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or... case, Fourth Amendment |
|
| Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.... |
libel; effect of Sullivan on private figures | |
| United States v. Wade United States v. Wade United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that a criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a lineup held after indictment.-Factual background:... |
no police lineup without counsel | |
| Gilbert v. California Gilbert v. California Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967.... |
handwriting | |
| United States v. Robel United States v. Robel United States v. Robel, was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled that the United States government cannot deprive the people of constitutional rights, even in the interests of national security. Specifically, the right of free association.... |
First Amendment, right of association | |
| Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co. , is a United States Supreme Court decision that established what has become known as the "separability principle" in contracts with arbitration clauses... |
Separability principle: challenges to enforceability of contracts with arbitration clause Arbitration clause An arbitration clause is a commonly used clause in a contract that requires the parties to resolve their disputes through an arbitration process... s must be decided by arbitrator unless clause itself is challenged |
|
| Katz v. United States Katz v. United States Katz v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search." The Court’s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial... |
wiretapping as search and seizure | |
| Zschernig v. Miller Zschernig v. Miller Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated an Oregon statute for unconstitutionally intruding into the federal realm of foreign affairs even though the statute did not conflict with any federal treaty or statute.- Facts of the case... |
foreign relations and state property law preventing inheritance Inheritance Inheritance is the practice of passing on property, titles, debts, rights and obligations upon the death of an individual. It has long played an important role in human societies... by nonresident aliens Alien (law) In law, an alien is a person in a country who is not a citizen of that country.-Categorization:Types of "alien" persons are:*An alien who is legally permitted to remain in a country which is foreign to him or her. On specified terms, this kind of alien may be called a legal alien of that country... |
|
| Mora v. McNamara Mora v. McNamara Mora v. McNamara, 389 U.S. 934 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court was asked to rule on the case of a conscientious objector who claimed that the U.S. war against Vietnam was an illegal war of aggression... |
denial of certiorari Certiorari Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare... in a case questioning the legality of the Vietnam War Vietnam War The Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of... |
|
| Haynes v. United States Haynes v. United States Haynes v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S... |
Compulsory firearm registration as self-incrimination | |
| Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson, , is a United States Supreme Court decision which clarified the meaning and application of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure... |
indispensable parties Indispensable party An indispensable party is a party in a lawsuit whose participation is required for jurisdiction or the purpose of rendering a judgment. In reality, a party may be "necessary" but not indispensable. For example, if s/he claims an interest in the litigation, that interest may be impeded if s/he is... under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern civil procedure in United States district courts. The FRCP are promulgated by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, and then the United States Congress has 7 months to veto the rules promulgated or they become part of the... |
|
| Albrecht v. Herald Co. Albrecht v. Herald Co. Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that wholesalers could not require franchisees and retailers of their products to sell items at a certain price; advertisements regarding sales therefore always included the language "Available at... |
minimum price agreements between wholesalers and franchisees unlawful under the Sherman Act | |
| Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County, , is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population.- Background :Having already held in 1965 in Reynolds v... |
local government Local government in the United States Local government in the United States is generally structured in accordance with the laws of the various individual states. Typically each state has at least two separate tiers: counties and municipalities. Some states have their counties divided into townships... districts must conform to "one man, one vote" |
|
| Ginsberg v. New York Ginsberg v. New York Ginsberg v. New York was a 1968 Supreme Court of the United States decision. The Warren Court ruled that material that is not obscene may nonetheless be harmful for children, and its marketing may be regulated.-Background:... |
States can prohibit sale of obscene material to minors | |
| Levy v. Louisiana Levy v. Louisiana Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 , is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. This decision deals primarily with the civil rights of illegitimate children, specifically in regards to their ability to sue on a deceased parent's behalf... |
An illegitimate child Legitimacy (law) At common law, legitimacy is the status of a child who is born to parents who are legally married to one another; and of a child who is born shortly after the parents' divorce. In canon and in civil law, the offspring of putative marriages have been considered legitimate children... may still sue on behalf of a deceased parent; to deny them this right violates the Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v... |
|
| Duncan v. Louisiana Duncan v. Louisiana Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.-Background of the case:... |
selective incorporation Incorporation (Bill of Rights) The incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government... , trial by jury Jury trial A jury trial is a legal proceeding in which a jury either makes a decision or makes findings of fact which are then applied by a judge... |
|
| United States v. O'Brien United States v. O'Brien United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech... |
free speech, burning draft cards | |
| Menominee Tribe v. United States Menominee Tribe v. United States Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 , was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the tribal hunting and fishing rights which were retained by treaty were not abrogated by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect by Congress... |
Tribal hunting and fishing rights, treaty interpretation | |
| Green v. County School Board of New Kent County Green v. County School Board of New Kent County Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with the freedom of choice plans created to comply with the mandate in Brown II... |
"freedom-of-choice" desegregation plan held unconstitutional | |
| Witherspoon v. Illinois Witherspoon v. Illinois Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case where the court ruled that a state statute providing the state unlimited challenge for cause of jurors who might have any objection to the death penalty gave too much bias in favor of the prosecution.The Court said, The decision... |
constitutional status of a death-qualified jury Death-qualified jury A death-qualified jury is a jury in a criminal law case in the United States in which the death penalty is a prospective sentence. Such a jury will be composed of jurors who:#Are not categorically opposed to the imposition of capital punishment;... |
|
| Pickering v. Board of Education Pickering v. Board of Education Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being dismissed from... |
public employees' free speech rights | |
| Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police... |
search and seizure, power of police to stop and frisk suspicious persons | |
| Flast v. Cohen Flast v. Cohen Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.... |
taxpayer standing Standing (law) In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case... |
|
| United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 , is a case in the development of American administrative law.-Legal principle:The scope of authority held by an agency is determined by the agency's organic statute... |
Administrative law United States administrative law United States administrative law encompasses a number of statutes and cases which define the extent of the powers and responsibilities held by administrative agencies of the United States Government. The executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the U.S. federal government cannot always... |
|
| King v. Smith King v. Smith King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 , was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends.Mrs. Sylvester Smith was an Alabama resident who... |
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Aid to Families with Dependent Children Aid to Families with Dependent Children was a federal assistance program in effect from 1935 to 1996, which was administered by the United States Department of Health and Human Services... cannot be denied to families of qualifying children based on a substitute father |
|
| Mancusi v. DeForte Mancusi v. DeForte Mancusi v. DeForte, , is a 1968 decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of... |
Fourth Amendment allows reasonable expectation of privacy Expectation of privacy In United States constitutional law the expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution... to exist at workplace |
|
| Jones v. Mayer Jones v. Mayer Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 , is a United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property in order to prevent racial discrimination: " bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that... |
housing discrimination | |
| Epperson v. Arkansas Epperson v. Arkansas Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 , was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools... |
religiously motivated state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in publicly funded schools | |
| Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools... |
freedom of speech in public schools | |
| Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Petitioner was Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth an African American minister who helped lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963... |
overbreadth of local ordinance Local ordinance A local ordinance is a law usually found in a municipal code.-United States:In the United States, these laws are enforced locally in addition to state law and federal law.-Japan:... used by city officials to ban civil rights march |
|
| Stanley v. Georgia Stanley v. Georgia Stanley v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law.The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia... |
private possession of obscene Obscenity An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious... material protected under First Amendment |
|
| Street v. New York Street v. New York In Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 , the United States Supreme Court held that a New York state law making it a crime "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]" was, in part, unconstitutional because... |
free speech and flag burning Flag desecration Flag desecration is a term applied to various acts that intentionally destroy, damage or mutilate a flag in public, most often a national flag. Often, such action is intended to make a political point against a country or its policies... |
|
| Shapiro v. Thompson Shapiro v. Thompson Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , was a Supreme Court decision that helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law. Although the Constitution does not mention the right to travel, it is implied by the other rights given in the Constitution... |
Right to travel | |
| Leary v. United States Leary v. United States Leary v. United States, , is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Timothy Leary, a professor and activist, was arrested for the possession of marijuana in violation of the Marihuana Tax Act. Leary challenged the act on the ground that the... |
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215... |
|
| Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC | Fairness Doctrine Fairness Doctrine The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission , introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable... , broadcaster Broadcasting Broadcasting is the distribution of audio and video content to a dispersed audience via any audio visual medium. Receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively large subset of thereof... responsibilities, freedom of speech |
|
| Brandenburg v. Ohio Brandenburg v. Ohio Brandenburg v. Ohio, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action... |
freedom of speech, incitement to riot | |
| Powell v. McCormack Powell v. McCormack Powell v. McCormack, was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1969. It answered the question of whether Congress has the authority to exclude from being sworn in and enrolled upon its rolls a person who has been duly elected or appointed by the people or the executive authority of his/her... |
political question Political question In American Constitutional law, the political question doctrine is closely linked to the concept of justiciability, as it comes down to a question of whether or not the court system is an appropriate forum in which to hear the case. This is because the court system only has authority to hear and... doctrine, justiciability Justiciability Justiciability concerns the limits upon legal issues over which a court can exercise its judicial authority. It includes, but is not limited to, the legal concept of standing, which is used to determine if the party bringing the suit is a party appropriate to establishing whether an actual... |
|
| Kramer v. Union School District Kramer v. Union School District Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621 was a United States Supreme Court decision in which a childless bachelor living with his parents in the Union School District challenged Section 2012 of the New York Education Law which stated that voters for school district elections must own or lease... |
right to vote in a special election district | |
| Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Lear, Inc. v. Adkins Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 , is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the doctrine of licensee estoppel and holding that public interest considerations require that licensees be free to challenge the validity of possibly spurious patents under which they are licensed. This... |
overturning the doctrine of licensee estoppel Licensee estoppel Licensee estoppel was a U.S. patent law doctrine, now overturned, that a licensee under a patent would not be permitted to challenge the validity of the patent. The Supreme Court, in Lear, Inc. v... in U.S. patent law United States patent law United States patent law was established "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" as provided by the United States Constitution. Congress implemented these... |
|
| Chimel v. California Chimel v. California Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , is a Supreme Court of the United States case handed down in 1969. In the case, the Court held that police officers arresting a person in their home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they can search the area within immediate... |
search and seizure incident to arrest Searches incident to a lawful arrest In most cases, a search warrant is required to perform a lawful search. An long-recognized exception to this requirement is searches incident to a lawful arrest. This rule permits an officer to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest... |
|
| Benton v. Maryland Benton v. Maryland Benton v. Maryland, , is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does apply to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut, .-Facts of the case:John Dalmer Benton was... |
double jeopardy Double jeopardy Double jeopardy is a procedural defense that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same, or similar charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction... |