List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger 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...
Warren Earl Burger (June 23, 1969 through September 26, 1986).
1970–1979
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Beginning of active duty of Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, June 23, 1969 | ||
| Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. | standard of 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.... 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... |
|
| Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education | delays in school 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... |
|
| Goldberg v. Kelly Goldberg v. Kelly Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits can be deprived of such benefits... |
procedural due process, hearing requirement | |
| In re Winship In re Winship In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that when a juvenile is charged with an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, changing the previous standard of preponderance of... |
when a juvenile is charged with an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult, every element of the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt | |
| Waller v. Florida Waller v. Florida Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.-See also:*List of United States Supreme... |
collateral estoppel Collateral estoppel Collateral estoppel , known in modern terminology as issue preclusion, is a common law estoppel doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. One summary is that "once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision ..... as applied to the same factual situation in criminal trials, double jeopardy |
|
| Ashe v. Swenson Ashe v. Swenson Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit." The Double Jeopardy Clause... |
same as in Waller v. Florida, above | |
| Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York | tax exemption for churches | |
| Rowan v. U. S. Post Office Dept. Rowan v. U. S. Post Office Dept. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that an addressee of postal mail has unreviewable discretion to decide whether he wishes to receive further material from a particular sender, that the sender does not have a constitutional right to... |
addressees have unreviewable discretion to refuse further mail from a given sender; senders don't have a Constitutional right to send keep someone on a mailing list for unwanted mail | |
| Williams v. Florida Williams v. Florida Williams v. Florida was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, argued on 4 March 1970 and decided on 22 June 1970. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not entitle a defendant in a criminal trial to refuse to provide details of his alibi witnesses to... |
twelve-man jury Jury A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,... |
|
| North Carolina v. Alford North Carolina v. Alford North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that there are no constitutional barriers in place to prevent a judge from accepting a guilty plea from a defendant who wants to plead guilty while still protesting his innocence... |
guilty plea Plea In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a civil or criminal case under common law using the adversary system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a criminal defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that... in criminal case |
|
| Oregon v. Mitchell Oregon v. Mitchell Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 , was a case in the USA in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could set their own age limits for state elections.... |
age and voting rights in state elections | |
| Massachusetts v. Laird Massachusetts v. Laird Massachusetts v. Laird, 400 U.S. 886 , was a case dealing with the conscription aspect of the Vietnam War that the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear by a 6-3 vote.... |
Court declined to hear a case related to the Constitutionality 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... |
|
| Baird v. State Bar of Arizona Baird v. State Bar of Arizona Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled:In this case, a law school graduate who had passed the Arizona written bar examination had applied to be admitted to the Arizona bar, but had refused to answer a question as to whether she... |
states cannot ban people from legal practice due to Communist party membership | |
| In re Stolar In re Stolar In re Stolar, 401 U.S. 23 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that requiring bar association applicants to list every organization that one belonged to since starting law school is unconstitutional.... |
a state cannot require bar applicants to list every organization he or she belonged to since starting law school Law school A law school is an institution specializing in legal education.- Law degrees :- Canada :... --decided same day as Baird v. State Bar of Arizona |
|
| Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.-Facts:A... |
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... |
|
| Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies... |
judicial review of administrative agency actions | |
| Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., , was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory and was decided on March 8, 1971... |
employment discrimination; disparate effect of employer practices | |
| Haywood v. National Basketball Association Haywood v. National Basketball Association Haywood v. National Basketball Association, 401 U.S. 1204 , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled, 7–2, against the National Basketball Association’s old requirement that a player may not be drafted by a NBA team unless he waited four years following his graduation from high... |
Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... applied to the NBA National Basketball Association The National Basketball Association is the pre-eminent men's professional basketball league in North America. It consists of thirty franchised member clubs, of which twenty-nine are located in the United States and one in Canada... |
|
| Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with the busing of students to promote integration in public schools... |
use of busing for school 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... |
|
| Richardson v. Perales Richardson v. Perales Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 , was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court to determine and delineate several questions concerning administrative procedure in Social Security disability cases... |
physician Physician A physician is a health care provider who practices the profession of medicine, which is concerned with promoting, maintaining or restoring human health through the study, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, injury and other physical and mental impairments... s' written reports of medical examinations of a disability claimant could constitute "substantial evidence" supportive of finding nondisability under the Social Security Act. |
|
| California v. Byers California v. Byers California v. Byers, 402 U.S. 424 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that providing personal information at the scene of an accident does not infringe on one's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.... |
Statute requiring drivers to provide personal information at the scene of an accident does not infringe on one'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... privilege 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... |
|
| United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, , is a 1971 United States Supreme Court decision in an in rem case on procedures following the seizure of imported obscene material... |
Constitutionality of ban on importation of obscene material | |
| Coates v. Cincinnati Coates v. Cincinnati Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a local city ordinance which made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy passersby was unconstitutional.-Background:In 1956 Cincinnati, Ohio passed... |
criminal offenses on sidewalk | |
| Cohen v. California Cohen v. California Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man wearing a jacket decorated with profanity.-Background of the case:... |
freedom of speech, fighting words/obscenity, “fuck the draft” | |
| Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents | implied right of action in 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... |
|
| Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools for the salaries of teachers who... |
laws without a secular purpose violate the Establishment Clause | |
| Clay v. United States Clay v. United States Clay v. United States, , was boxer Muhammad Ali's appeal of his conviction for refusing to report for induction into the United States military forces during the Vietnam War. His local draft board had rejected his application for conscientious objector classification... |
Since the Appeal Board gave no reason for the denial of a conscientious objector exemption, petitioner's conviction must be reversed | |
| New York Times Co. v. United States New York Times Co. v. United States New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 , was a United States Supreme Court per curiam decision. The ruling made it possible for the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure.President Richard Nixon had... |
freedom of the press, national security, Pentagon Papers | |
| Reed v. Reed Reed v. Reed Reed v. Reed, , was an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. After the death of their adopted son, Sally and Cecil Reed sought to be named the administrator of their... |
extended Fourteenth Amendment rights to womenReed v. Reed - Significance, Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1963 to 1972 | |
| Parisi v. Davidson Parisi v. Davidson Parisi v. Davidson, 405 U.S. 34 , was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in the grant of habeas corpus relief to a soldier, Joseph Parisi, seeking an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector. The case was argued on October 19 and 20, 1971 and decided on February 23, 1972. The... |
conscientious objector Conscientious objector A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.... status |
|
| Papachristou v. Jacksonville Papachristou v. Jacksonville Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 , was a United States Supreme Court case resulting in a Jacksonville vagrancy ordinance being declared unconstitutionally vague. The case was argued on December 8, 1971 and decided on February 24, 1972... |
vagrancy Vagrancy (people) A vagrant is a person in poverty, who wanders from place to place without a home or regular employment or income.-Definition:A vagrant is "a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging;" vagrancy is the condition of such persons.-History:In... ordinance held void for vagueness Void for vagueness Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague... |
|
| Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co. Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co. Federal Trade Commission v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co., , is a 1972 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission may act against a company’s “unfair” business practices even though the practice is none of the following: an antitrust violation, an... |
FTC Federal Trade Commission The Federal Trade Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act... may act against a company’s “unfair” business practices even though the practice is not an antitrust violation |
|
| Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., 405 U.S. 251 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act does not authorize a U.S. state to sue for damages for an injury to its general economy allegedly attributable to a violation of the United... |
states cannot sue for general economic damage due to violation of antitrust laws | |
| Cruz v. Beto Cruz v. Beto Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim on the basis of the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that... |
free exercise of religion Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:... while in prison custody |
|
| Commissioner v. First Security Bank of Utah, N.A. | tax reporting for banks prohibited from doing insurance business | |
| Eisenstadt v. Baird Eisenstadt v. Baird Eisenstadt v. Baird, , was an important United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse .The... |
privacy, birth control | |
| Sierra Club v. Morton | 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... in cases in which plaintiff Plaintiff A plaintiff , also known as a claimant or complainant, is the term used in some jurisdictions for the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court... s assert interest in aesthetic or recreational interest in property (in this case, Mineral King Mineral King Mineral King is a subalpine glacial valley located in the southern part of Sequoia National Park, in the U.S. state of California. The valley lies at the headwaters of the East Fork of the Kaweah River, which rises at the eastern part of the valley and flows northwest... area) |
|
| Wisconsin v. Yoder Wisconsin v. Yoder Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion.... |
freedom of religion, high school education | |
| Apodaca v. Oregon Apodaca v. Oregon Apodaca v. Oregon, is a United States Supreme Court case which held that state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity even though federal law required that federal juries must reach criminal verdicts unanimously... |
state juries may convict a defendant by less than unanimity | |
| Jackson v. Indiana Jackson v. Indiana Jackson v. Indiana was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that determined a state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against... |
indefinite detention of a defendant incompetent to stand trial violates 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... and equal protection |
|
| Aikens v. California Aikens v. California Aikens v. California, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the California Supreme Court in California v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628 ,... |
mootness Mootness In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law... in a death penalty case |
|
| The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Company, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered when a U.S. court should uphold the validity of a contractual forum selection clause.... |
enforceability of a forum selection clause Forum selection clause A forum selection clause in a contract with a conflict of laws element allows the parties to agree that any litigation resulting from that contract will be initiated in a specific forum... |
|
| Fuentes v. Shevin Fuentes v. Shevin Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein petitioners challenged the constitutionality of the Uniform Commercial Code provisions of two states, Florida and Pennsylvania, which allowed for the summary seizure of a person's goods or chattels... |
Opportunity to be heard | |
| Pennsylvania v. New York Pennsylvania v. New York Pennsylvania v. New York, were two cases which were heard in 1972 before the U.S. Supreme Court. The initial filing was allowed at 407 U.S. 206 and the final decision was ordered at 407 U.S. 223 .... |
state of escheat Escheat Escheat is a common law doctrine which transfers the property of a person who dies without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in limbo without recognised ownership... for unclaimed money orders |
|
| Flood v. Kuhn Flood v. Kuhn Flood v. Kuhn was a 1972 United States Supreme Court decision upholding, by a 5–3 margin, the antitrust exemption first granted to Major League Baseball in Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It arose from a challenge by St. Louis Cardinals' outfielder Curt Flood when he refused to be... |
baseball and antitrust regulation | |
| United States v. U.S. District Court United States v. U.S. District Court United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 , also known as the Keith case, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the requirements of the Fourth Amendment in cases of domestic surveillance targeting a domestic threat.-The case:The United... |
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... , Search and seizure Search and seizure Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have... , Search warrant Search warrant A search warrant is a court order issued by a Magistrate, judge or Supreme Court Official that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found.... , Wiretapping |
|
| Barker v. Wingo Barker v. Wingo Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that determinations of whether or not the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial for defendants in criminal cases has been denied must be made on a case-by-case basis.One factor recognized by the Court was the... |
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... and speedy trial |
|
| Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner In the Supreme Court Case: Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, which took place on April 18th, 1972, Donald Tanner, Betsy Wheeler and Susan Roberts brought forth an altercation from 42 United States Code 1983 and 28 United States Code 2201 for a judgment declaring that they have the right as an American... |
First Amendment; private property; rights | |
| Laird v. Tatum Laird v. Tatum Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court dismissed for lack of ripeness a claim in which the plaintiff accused the U.S... |
freedom of speech rights cannot be chilled by the mere existence of government surveillance and data gathering | |
| Kois v. Wisconsin Kois v. Wisconsin Kois v. Wisconsin, , was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the obscenity conviction of Milwaukee editor-publisher John Kois, whose underground newspaper Kaleidoscope had published two small photographs of pictures of nudes and a sexually-oriented poem entitled "Sex Poem" in 1968... |
nude photographs accompanying and rationally related to a newspaper story are entitled to Constitutional free press protection | |
| Furman v. Georgia Furman v. Georgia Furman v. Georgia, was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was... |
death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... ; overruled by Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 , reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon... |
|
| Board of Regents v. Roth | procedural 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... in firing non-tenured professor |
|
| Perry v. Sindermann Perry v. Sindermann Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 was a United States Supreme Court decision affecting educational case law involving tenure and due process.-Facts:... |
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... ; de facto professor Professor A professor is a scholarly teacher; the precise meaning of the term varies by country. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes" being usually an expert in arts or sciences; a teacher of high rank... tenure Tenure Tenure commonly refers to life tenure in a job and specifically to a senior academic's contractual right not to have his or her position terminated without just cause.-19th century:... |
|
| Gravel v. United States Gravel v. United States Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 , was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution... |
protection offered by the Speech or Debate Clause Speech or Debate Clause The Speech or Debate Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution . The clause states that members of both Houses of Congress... to non-legislative activity |
|
| Branzburg v. Hayes Branzburg v. Hayes Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972 and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporter lost his... |
First Amendment; grand jury, journalists’ rights | |
| Kleindienst v. Mandel Kleindienst v. Mandel Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the United States Attorney General has the right to refuse somebody's entry to the United States, as he has been empowered to do so in 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.This... |
U.S. Attorney General's United States Attorney General The United States Attorney General is the head of the United States Department of Justice concerned with legal affairs and is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States government. The attorney general is considered to be the chief lawyer of the U.S. government... power to deny persons entry to the United States |
|
| Gottschalk v. Benson Gottschalk v. Benson Gottschalk v. Benson, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm... |
Computer algorithms not considered patentable subject matter Patentable subject matter Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries suggest that certain subject matter is or is not something for which a patent should be granted.Together with novelty, inventive step... |
|
| Bronston v. United States Bronston v. United States Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 , is a seminal United States Supreme Court decision strictly construing the federal perjury statute. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a unanimous Court that responses to questions made under oath that relayed truthful information in and of themselves but... |
Literally truthful statements under oath cannot be prosecuted as perjury Perjury Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the... even if intent was to mislead questioner |
|
| United States v. Dionisio | Compelled production of voice samples and the Fourth 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... and 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... . |
|
| United States v. Mara aka Marasovich | Compelled production of handwriting samples. | |
| United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. is a 1973 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court held that when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on... |
when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent | |
| Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,... |
abortion Abortion Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced... , due process, privacy |
|
| Doe v. Bolton Doe v. Bolton Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S... |
restrictions on abortion | |
| United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.Due to a chronic freight car shortage, Congress had enlarged the scope of the Interstate Commerce Commission's authority to prescribe per diem rate charges for the use of one company's freight... |
due process right to a hearing when administrative rules are to be changed | |
| San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez | equal protection, education | |
| Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state could tax tribal, off-reservation business activities but could not impose a tax on tribal land, which was exempt from all forms of property taxes.-Background:The Mescalero... |
Indian taxation by states | |
| McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona has no jurisdiction to impose a tax on the income of Navajo Indians residing on the Navajo Reservation and whose income is wholly derived from reservation... |
Indian taxation by states | |
| United States v. Russell United States v. Russell United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 , was the first time the United States Supreme Court upheld a conviction where the defendant had argued entrapment... |
Active government agent involvement in criminal conspiracy does not constitute 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... ; Rehnquist inadvertently creates possible "outrageous government conduct" standard. |
|
| Frontiero v. Richardson Frontiero v. Richardson Frontiero v. Richardson, , was an Equal Protection case in which the Supreme Court decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of gender.... |
equal protection, gender discrimination in military dependency regulation | |
| Gagnon v. Scarpelli Gagnon v. Scarpelli Gagnon v. Scarpelli, was the second substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a probation or parole sentence.... |
probation hearings 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... |
|
| McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, , was an early substantive ruling by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof... |
standard of proof in employment discrimination Employment discrimination Employment discrimination is discrimination in hiring, promotion, job assignment, termination, and compensation. It includes various types of harassment.... cases |
|
| Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, , was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the high court ruled that in a case involving a consent search, while knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account, the state doesn not need to prove that the one who is giving permission to search... |
Voluntary searches are permissible without the knowledge to refuse them | |
| United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) | 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 |
|
| Miller v. California Miller v. California Miller v. California, was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes... |
freedom of speech Freedom of speech Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used... , Miller test Miller test The Miller test , is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.-History and details:The Miller test was developed in the... for obscenity 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... |
|
| United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film, , is an in rem case decided by the Supreme Court in 1973. It considered the question of whether the First Amendment required that citizens be allowed to import obscene material for their personal and private use at home, already held to be protected... |
ban on importing obscene material stands but material to be re-evaluated under Miller test | |
| Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, , is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court which upheld an ordinance enacted in Pittsburgh that forbids sex-designated classified advertising for job opportunities, against a claim by the parent company of the Pittsburgh... |
freedom of the press Freedom of the press in the United States Freedom of the press in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This clause is generally understood as prohibiting the government from interfering with the printing and distribution of information or opinions, although freedom of the press, like... , discriminatory commercial speech Commercial speech Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product... in classified advertising Classified advertising Classified advertising is a form of advertising which is particularly common in newspapers, online and other periodicals which may be sold or distributed free of charge... |
|
| Norwood v. Harrison Norwood v. Harrison Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U.S. 455 , is a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of constitutional law which the court held that a state cannot provide aid to a private school which discriminates on the basis of race... |
equal protection does not require equal state assistance to public and private schools and forbids assistance to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race | |
| Broadrick v. Oklahoma Broadrick v. Oklahoma Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding an Oklahoma statute which prohibited state employees from engaging in partisan political activities... |
overbreadth Overbreadth doctrine In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment. American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment , and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected... of Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma is a state located in the South Central region of the United States of America. With an estimated 3,751,351 residents as of the 2010 census and a land area of 68,667 square miles , Oklahoma is the 28th most populous and 20th-largest state... statute Statute A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations... forbidding political activities by state employees |
|
| Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co. | employers can refuse to hire foreign citizens without violating their civil rights | |
| North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. In North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156 , the North Dakota Supreme Court, relying on the 1928 decision in Liggett Co. v. Baldridge,In North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc., 414 U.S. 156 (1973), the North Dakota Supreme... |
Court upholds North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota is a state located in the Midwestern region of the United States of America, along the Canadian border. The state is bordered by Canada to the north, Minnesota to the east, South Dakota to the south and Montana to the west. North Dakota is the 19th-largest state by area in the U.S.... pharmacy ownership statute against substantive due process Substantive due process Substantive due process is one of the theories of law through which courts enforce limits on legislative and executive powers and authority... attack |
|
| Lau v. Nichols Lau v. Nichols Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 , was a civil rights case that was brought by Chinese American students living in San Francisco, California who had limited English proficiency... |
foreign-language education and discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation... |
|
| Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 found that overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment... |
Overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Schlesinger v. Holtzman | presidential war power | |
| United States v. Matlock United States v. Matlock United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority... |
Fourth Amendment, Search and seizure Search and seizure Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime.Some countries have... , "co-occupant consent rule" |
|
| Morton v. Ruiz Morton v. Ruiz Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S.199 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court.Ramon Ruiz and his wife Anita were Papago Indians and U.S. citizens who in 1940 left the Papago reservation in Arizona to seek employment 15 miles away at the Phelps-Dodge copper mines at Ajo... |
administrative law Administrative law Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law... , Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Affairs The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American... improperly limited eligibility for general assistance benefits |
|
| Johnson v. Robison Johnson v. Robison Johnson v. Robison, , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The court held that the Veterans' Administrations' allocation of greater educational benefits to combat veterans than conscientious objectors was consistent with the United States Constitution... |
different benefits for combat veterans and conscientious objectors does not violate equal protection or the free exercise clause | |
| Edelman v. Jordan Edelman v. Jordan Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that, because of the sovereign immunity recognized in the Eleventh Amendment, a federal court could not order a State to pay back funds unconstitutionally withheld from parties to whom they were due.-Facts:The... |
Eleventh Amendment Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v... and disability payments |
|
| Storer v. Brown Storer v. Brown Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a California law that prohibited an individual from running for an elected office as an independent candidate within six months of that individual having been a member of a registered political party.... |
political campaign laws | |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling.-Background:... |
upholding a zoning Zoning Zoning is a device of land use planning used by local governments in most developed countries. The word is derived from the practice of designating permitted uses of land based on mapped zones which separate one set of land uses from another... ordinance which prevented multiple unrelated people from living together |
|
| DeFunis v. Odegaard DeFunis v. Odegaard DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on April 23, 1974, that was determined to be moot, and therefore could not go forward... |
mootness Mootness In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law... |
|
| Bob Jones University v. Simon Bob Jones University v. Simon Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.... |
A private university, notified by the IRS, about a new policy of denying tax-exempt status for private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies. Petitioner sued for injunctive relief to prevent revocation | |
| Geduldig v. Aiello Geduldig v. Aiello Geduldig v. Aiello, , was an equal protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment... |
Denial of benefits for work loss resulting from normal pregnancy does not violate 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"... |
|
| Morton v. Mancari Morton v. Mancari Morton v. Mancari, , was a United States legal case about the constitutionality, under the Fifth Amendment, of hiring preferences given to Indians within the Bureau of Indian Affairs... |
hiring preferences given by Congress to Native Americans 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... at the Bureau of Indian Affairs Bureau of Indian Affairs The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American... are not violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. |
|
| Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co. Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co. Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., 418 U.S. 1 -Facts:Taxpayer, Idaho Power Co., used its own equipment and employees to improve and add to its capital facilities. On its books, Idaho Power capitalized the construction-related depreciation on this equipment used for construction of the capital asset... |
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... , capitalization of costs related to acquisition of capital asset Capital asset The term capital asset has three unrelated technical definitions, and is also used in a variety of non-technical ways.*In financial economics, it refers to any asset used to make money, as opposed to assets used for personal enjoyment or consumption... s |
|
| Jenkins v. Georgia Jenkins v. Georgia Jenkins v. Georgia, , was a U.S. Supreme Court Case of 1974 overturning a Georgia Supreme Court ruling regarding the depiction of sexual conduct in the film Carnal Knowledge.... |
obscenity 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... ; motion picture Carnal Knowledge Carnal Knowledge (film) Carnal Knowledge is a 1971 American drama film. The film was directed by Mike Nichols and written by Jules Feiffer.-Plot:Sandy and Jonathan are roommates at Amherst College whose lives are explored and seem to offer a contrast to one another... |
|
| Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 , was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal space in their newspapers to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content... |
freedom of speech | |
| Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 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... |
First Amendment and defamation—narrowing New York Times v. Sullivan | |
| United States v. Nixon United States v. Nixon United States v. Nixon, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president.Chief Justice... |
judicial review, executive privilege, separation of powers | |
| Milliken v. Bradley Milliken v. Bradley Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 , was a significant United States Supreme Court case dealing with the planned desegregation busing of public school students across district lines among 53 school districts in metropolitan Detroit. It concerned the plans to integrate public schools in the United... |
segregation, busing | |
| Taylor v. Louisiana Taylor v. Louisiana Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 , is a significant Supreme Court of the United States case, which held women could not be excluded from a venire, or jury pool, on the basis of having to register for jury duty, thus overturning Hoyt v. Florida, the 1961 case that had allowed such a... |
women cannot be excluded from a jury pool, overturning 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... |
|
| Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 was a United States Supreme Court case that held that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension... |
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... in suspending a student from school |
|
| NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc. NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled that employees in unionized workplaces have the right under the National Labor Relations Act to the presence of a union steward during any management inquiry that the employee reasonably believes... |
The Weingarten rights Weingarten Rights In 1975 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., , upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision that employees have a right to union representation at investigatory interviews... --rights of union members facing disciplinary proceedings |
|
| Lefkowitz v. Newsome Lefkowitz v. Newsome Lefkowitz v. Newsome, , is a US Supreme Court case which held that when state law permits a defendant to plead guilty without giving up his right to judicial review of specified constitutional issues, such as the lawfulness of a search or the voluntariness of a confession, the defendant is not... |
guilty plea Plea In legal terms, a plea is simply an answer to a claim made by someone in a civil or criminal case under common law using the adversary system. Colloquially, a plea has come to mean the assertion by a criminal defendant at arraignment, or otherwise in response to a criminal charge, whether that... s in state court and federal 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... proceeding |
|
| United States v. Feola United States v. Feola United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that conspiracy to assault a federal officer, like the substantive crime of assaulting a federal officer, doesn't require knowledge that the victims were federal officers.The case involved a drug... |
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... requirement for conspiracy is no greater than that for the substantive crime |
|
| Schlesinger v. Councilman Schlesinger v. Councilman Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.The case was a key part of government arguments in the 2006 case of Hamdan v... |
scope and jurisdiction of courts martial | |
| Stanton v. Stanton Stanton v. Stanton Stanton v. Stanton, is a United States Supreme Court case which struck down Utah's definitions of adulthood as a violation of equal protection: females reached adulthood at 18; males at 21.-Background:The case had started in Utah state court... |
different ages of majority in the context of child support did not pass rational basis review Rational basis review Rational basis review, in U.S. constitutional law, refers to a level of scrutiny applied by courts when deciding cases presenting constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment. Rational basis is the lowest level of scrutiny that a... regarding equal protection |
|
| Dunlop v. Bachowski Dunlop v. Bachowski Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 is a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Department of Labor to proceed with prosecutions... |
judicial power and judicial review | |
| United States v. Park United states v. Park United States v. Park 421 U.S. 658 .This is an important case where the Food and Drug Administration was able to pierce the corporate veil. The defendant, Park, was the CEO of Acme International... |
criminal liability of chief executive officer Chief executive officer A chief executive officer , managing director , Executive Director for non-profit organizations, or chief executive is the highest-ranking corporate officer or administrator in charge of total management of an organization... of a corporation Corporation A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter... for the misdeeds of the company |
|
| Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that only those suffering direct loss from the purchase or sale of stock had standing to sue under federal securities law.... |
private damages actions under Rule 10b-5 is confined to actual purchasers or sellers of securities Security (finance) A security is generally a fungible, negotiable financial instrument representing financial value. Securities are broadly categorized into:* debt securities ,* equity securities, e.g., common stocks; and,... |
|
| Bigelow v. Virginia | First Amendment and commercial speech Commercial speech Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product... |
|
| Cort v. Ash Cort v. Ash Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined whether a court may imply a cause of action from a criminal statute.-Facts & procedural history:Defendant/petitioner Stewart S... |
election Election An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office. Elections have been the usual mechanism by which modern representative democracy operates since the 17th century. Elections may fill offices in the legislature, sometimes in the... law, implied cause of action Implied cause of action Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law... |
|
| Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning a city ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity by a drive-in theater.... |
city ordinance prohibiting the showing of films containing nudity by a drive-in theater violated 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... |
|
| City of Richmond v. United States City of Richmond v. United States City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U.S. 358 was a case that upheld Richmond, Virginia's annexation of land from surrounding counties.-See also:*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 422*Shaw v. Reno*Miller v. Johnson... |
A case that limited Richmond, Virginia's right to annex land from surrounding counties | |
| Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reviewed the concept of judicial standing and affirmed that if the plaintiffs lacked standing, they could not maintain a case against the defendants.... |
law of 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. Peltier | Exclusionary Rule Not Applicable when officer relied on statute subsequently ruled unconstitutional | |
| O'Connor v. Donaldson O'Connor v. Donaldson O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 , was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing... |
institutionalization of a non-dangerous mentally ill Mental illness A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural,... person |
|
| Faretta v. California Faretta v. California Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.-Facts of the case:... |
criminal defendants have the constitutional right to refuse counsel | |
| United States v. Brignoni-Ponce United States v. Brignoni-Ponce United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, , was the case in which the Supreme Court determined it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a roving patrol car to stop a vehicle solely on the basis of the driver appearing to be of Mexican descent... |
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... requires reasonable suspicion for border patrol agents to stop vehicles near the border and ask about citizenship and immigration status; apparent Mexican ancestry does not qualify |
|
| Rose v. Locke Rose v. Locke Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Tennessee statute proscribing "crime against nature" was held not unconstitutionally vague as applied to cunnilingus, satisfying as it does the due process standard of giving sufficient warning that men may so conduct... |
vagueness of a law against cunnilingus | |
| Rizzo v. Goode Rizzo v. Goode Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 , was United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a prophylactic injunction against non culpable state executive officials was an overbroad interference by the Federal Courts in the state executive branches... |
federalism and 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... s against city officials |
|
| Buckley v. Valeo Buckley v. Valeo Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law... |
First Amendment and campaign finance reform Campaign finance reform Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns.... |
|
| Mathews v. Eldridge Mathews v. Eldridge Mathews v. Eldridge, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in social security benefits, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of Social Security benefits does not require... |
procedural 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... for termination of 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 |
|
| Imbler v. Pachtman Imbler v. Pachtman Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which district attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.... |
immunity of prosecutors when acting within their official capacity | |
| Time, Inc. v. Firestone Time, Inc. v. Firestone Time, Inc. v. Firestone, , was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning defamation suits against public figures.-Background:Mary Alice Firestone was married to Russell A. Firestone, Jr., an heir to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a... |
rights of the media and public figures in defamation suits | |
| Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created a new doctrine of abstention, to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts.... |
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... |
|
| Dann v. Johnston | early case on the 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... of Business method patent Business method patent Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the... |
|
| Hills v. Gautreaux Hills v. Gautreaux Hills v. Gautreaux 425 U.S. 284 , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court.In this case, a number of Chicago families living in housing projects were awarded Section 8 vouchers allowing them to move to the suburbs in compensation for the housing project's substandard conditions... |
Fifth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation... |
|
| Hampton v. United States Hampton v. United States Hampton v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court decision on the subject of entrapment. By a 5-3 margin, the Court upheld the conviction of a Missouri man for selling heroin even though all the drug sold was supplied to him, he claimed, by a Drug Enforcement Agency informant who had in... |
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... and drug distribution |
|
| Estelle v. Williams Estelle v. Williams Estelle v. Williams 425 U.S. 501 , is a trial which involved the accused Harry Lee Williams murdering his former landlord in Harris County, Texas. While awaiting trial Williams was unable to post bail. Because he was unable to post bail he was tried in his prison uniform, and later was found... |
trying a criminal defendant while he is clad in prison garb violates due process | |
| Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could not limit pharmacists’ right to provide information about prescription drug prices... |
commercial speech—advertising prescription drug Prescription drug A prescription medication is a licensed medicine that is regulated by legislation to require a medical prescription before it can be obtained. The term is used to distinguish it from over-the-counter drugs which can be obtained without a prescription... prices |
|
| Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the application of the Due Process Clause. Two African Americans had applied for positions in the Washington, DC police department, and sued after being turned down... |
equal protection | |
| Bryan v. Itasca County Bryan v. Itasca County Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.A county in Minnesota... |
State taxation of Indians | |
| TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the requirement of materiality in securities fraud cases.-Facts and procedural history:... |
materiality of false or misleading statements in proxy statements under 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... |
|
| Kleppe v. New Mexico Kleppe v. New Mexico Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 , was a United States Supreme Court decision, which unanimously held that the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 , passed in 1971 by the United States Congress to protect these animals from “capture, branding, harassment, or death,” was a... |
protection of animals on land held by the Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management The Bureau of Land Management is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior which administers America's public lands, totaling approximately , or one-eighth of the landmass of the country. The BLM also manages of subsurface mineral estate underlying federal, state and private... |
|
| Doyle v. Ohio Doyle v. Ohio Doyle v. Ohio, , is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Due Process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.-Holding:The Supreme Court held that the criminal defendant's silence in response to a Miranda warning cannot be construed to imply an admission.-See also:*List of United States... |
impeaching a defendant with his silence in response to the warnings required by 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... violates 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... |
|
| Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich | judicial determination of internal disputes of church governance violates the Establishment Clause | |
| Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Maryland created a program that, 1) purchased junked cars, 2) paid a bounty for those with Maryland license plates and, 3) imposed more stringent documentation requirements on out-of-state... |
"market participant Market participant The term market participant is used in United States constitutional law to describe a U.S. State which is acting as a producer or supplier of a marketable good or service. When a state is acting in such a role, it may permissibly discriminate against non-residents. This principle was established by... exception" to the 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... |
|
| National League of Cities v. Usery National League of Cities v. Usery National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fair Labor Standards Act could not constitutionally be applied to state governments. The case was overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S... |
Tenth amendment Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791... sufficient to invalidate federal Fair Labor Standards Act Fair Labor Standards Act The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is a federal statute of the United States. The FLSA established a national minimum wage, guaranteed 'time-and-a-half' for overtime in certain jobs, and prohibited most employment of minors in "oppressive child labor," a term that is defined in the statute... ; overruled by Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that holds that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and... |
|
| Young v. American Mini Theatres Young v. American Mini Theatres Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 U.S. 50 is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a city ordinance of Detroit, Michigan requiring dispersal of adult businesses throughout the city.... |
upholding Detroit Detroit, Michigan Detroit is the major city among the primary cultural, financial, and transportation centers in the Metro Detroit area, a region of 5.2 million people. As the seat of Wayne County, the city of Detroit is the largest city in the U.S. state of Michigan and serves as a major port on the Detroit River... 's 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:... regulating location of adult-oriented businesses |
|
| Runyon v. McCrary Runyon v. McCrary Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court which held that federal law prohibited private schools from discriminating on the basis of race... |
race discrimination in private school admissions under | |
| New Orleans v. Dukes New Orleans v. Dukes New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297 , was a 1976 United States Supreme Court decision.-Background:The original case involved a 1972 New Orleans ordinance banning all pushcart food vendors in the French Quarter except those who had continuously operated there for eight or more years. Two vendors had... |
equal protection does not limit a state's regulatory power regarding grandfather clause Grandfather clause Grandfather clause is a legal term used to describe a situation in which an old rule continues to apply to some existing situations, while a new rule will apply to all future situations. It is often used as a verb: to grandfather means to grant such an exemption... s |
|
| Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that the U.S. Congress has the power to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states, if this is done pursuant to its Fourteenth Amendment power to enforce upon the states the... |
limitations imposed by the Eleventh Amendment Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v... on damages paid by states under Title VII |
|
| Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart | standards for regulating publicity in advance of a criminal trial | |
| Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Missouri state regulations regarding abortion was challenged... |
constitutionality of various abortion regulations; the first such challenge after Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,... |
|
| Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia Gregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 , reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon... |
capital punishment Capital punishment in the United States Capital punishment in the United States, in practice, applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder. Capital punishment was a penalty at common law, for many felonies, and was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence... does not per se violate the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... |
|
| Woodson v. North Carolina | mandatory death penalties Mandatory sentencing A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison... and capital punishment Capital punishment Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally... |
|
| South Dakota v. Opperman South Dakota v. Opperman South Dakota v. Opperman, , elaborated on the community caretaking doctrine. Under the Fourth Amendment, "unreasonable" searches and seizures are forbidden... |
searching an impounded vehicle is 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... |
|
| United States v. Janis United States v. Janis United States v. Janis, was a Supreme Court Case that found Max Janis and Morris Levine guilty of illegal bookmaking activities in Los Angeles in a 5-3 ruling. The two were arrested for the crime in November 1968. Appealing on the grounds of unconstitutionally seized evidence, Janis and Levine... |
the exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law... does not apply in civil forfeiture proceedings |
|
| Stone v. Powell | violations of the exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law... may not be asserted in federal 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... proceedings |
|
| United States v. Martinez-Fuerte United States v. Martinez-Fuerte United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth... |
routine stops of vehicles entering the United States made by the Border Patrol do not violate 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... |
|
| Estelle v. Gamble Estelle v. Gamble Estelle v. Gamble, , was a case decided by United States Supreme Court that held that in order to state a cognizable Section 1983 claim for a violation of Eighth Amendment rights, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical... |
deliberate indifference to prisoner medical needs is required to make out a violation of the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... |
|
| Craig v. Boren Craig v. Boren Craig v. Boren, , was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review... |
sex discrimination in drinking ages | |
| Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a... |
discriminatory intent required to make out a violation of 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"... |
|
| Mount Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle | retaliatory adverse employment action that rises to the level of a constitutional violation and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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... |
|
| Whalen v. Roe Whalen v. Roe Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 , was a case brought before the Supreme Court of the United States.-See also:* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 429*... |
The NY Controlled Substances Act's requirement that doctors send a copy of prescriptions to the state department of health did not violate privacy rights | |
| Califano v. Goldfarb Califano v. Goldfarb Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is... |
differing Social Security benefits for widows and widowers violates equal protection | |
| Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Commerce Clause and sales tax.-Background:... |
constitutional requirements for imposing state business privilege taxes on out-of-state corporations | |
| Brewer v. Williams Brewer v. Williams Brewer v. Williams, , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. Under Miranda v. Arizona, police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment... |
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... requires criminal defendants to have counsel during police interrogation conducted after indictment |
|
| Ingraham v. Wright Ingraham v. Wright Ingraham v. Wright, , was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the disciplinary corporal punishment policy of Florida's public schools by a 5–4 vote.... |
corporal punishment of public school students | |
| Wooley v. Maynard Wooley v. Maynard Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral... |
State cannot compel citizens to display the state motto upon their vehicle license plates Vehicle registration plate A vehicle registration plate is a metal or plastic plate attached to a motor vehicle or trailer for official identification purposes. The registration identifier is a numeric or alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies the vehicle within the issuing region's database... |
|
| Bounds v. Smith Bounds v. Smith -Overview:The case of Bounds v. Smith reached the Supreme Court on November 1, 1976 and was decided on April 27, 1977. Bounds v. Smith tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court... |
the right of prisoners to access the courts requires prisons to furnish legal assistance | |
| Linmark Associates, Inc., v. Township of Willingboro | municipality's ban on real estate signs unconstitutionally inhibited commercial speech Commercial speech Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product... |
|
| Abood v. Detroit Board of Education | compelling nonunion members to support union political activities violates the 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... |
|
| Moore v. City of East Cleveland | zoning ordinances forbidding extended families to live in the same house violate due process | |
| Carey v. Population Services International Carey v. Population Services International Carey v Population services international is a United States Supreme Court case. The court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit the sale of contraceptives to minors, the advertisements or displays of contraceptives, and the sale of contraceptives to adults except through a pharmacist... |
availability of contraceptives to girls under the age of 16 | |
| National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly.-Facts of the case:... |
procedure to be afforded those denied the right to march | |
| Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down a North Carolina law requiring all importers of apples to label their containers with United States Department of Agriculture grade, and... |
Dormant Commerce Clause | |
| Beal v. Doe Beal v. Doe Beal v. Doe, , was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood.... |
right of a state to restrict use of federal funds for abortion | |
| United States v. Chadwick United States v. Chadwick United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that, absent exigency, the warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and not justified under the automobile... |
warrantless search of double-locked luggage just placed in the trunk of a parked vehicle is not justified under the automobile exception to 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... |
|
| Shaffer v. Heitner Shaffer v. Heitner Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established that in order for an American state to assert personal jurisdiction, due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires minimum contacts over and above the mere ownership of stocks... |
quasi in rem Quasi in rem Quasi in rem is a legal term referring to a legal action based on property rights of a person absent from the jurisdiction. In the American legal system the state can assert power over an individual simply based on the fact that this individual has property in the state... jurisdiction and minimum contacts Minimum contacts Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state... |
|
| Bates v. State Bar of Arizona Bates v. State Bar of Arizona In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, , the Supreme Court first allowed lawyers to advertise their services. By holding that lawyer advertising was a kind of commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, the Court upset the tradition among lawyers that it demeaned the profession as a whole for... |
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... constraints on advertising by lawyers |
|
| Nixon v. Administrator of General Services | papers of President Nixon Richard Nixon Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974. The only president to resign the office, Nixon had previously served as a US representative and senator from California and as the 36th Vice President of the United States from 1953 to 1961 under... |
|
| Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 , was an important U.S. Supreme Court case concerning rights of publicity. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his... |
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... limitations on suits for invasion of privacy Invasion of privacy United States privacy law embodies several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into his or her private affairs, discloses his or her private information,... |
|
| Coker v. Georgia Coker v. Georgia Coker v. Georgia, , held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbade the death penalty for the crime of rape of a woman.-Facts:... |
death penalty for rape Rape Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent. The... unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... |
|
| Commissioner v. Kowalski Commissioner v. Kowalski Commissioner v. Kowalski, , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court relating to taxation of meals furnished by an employer. In this case, the Court interpreted Internal Revenue Code §119- and and Treas. Reg. §1.119-1... |
taxation of meals furnished by an employer. [1]In this case, the Court interpreted Internal Revenue Code §119(a)-(b)(4) and (d) and Treas. Reg. §1.119-1 | |
| Pennsylvania v. Mimms Pennsylvania v. Mimms A young man by the name of Harry Mimms was pulled over and eventually charged for possession of a deadly weapon. The ruling was later brought up to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in which the ruling was reversed in favor of Mimms, but brought up again in the U.S... |
applying 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... to passengers in an automobile |
|
| Moore v. Illinois | 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... requires a criminal defendant to counsel at a lineup conducted after being indicted |
|
| Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections | federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear untimely filed appeals | |
| Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India | foreign nations, who may sue in federal court, may also obtain triple damages for violations of the Clayton Act | |
| Bordenkircher v. Hayes | prosecutors may threaten defendants with more serious charges in order to induce a guilty plea | |
| Zablocki v. Redhail Zablocki v. Redhail Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 , , violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of... |
marriage Marriage Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found... as a fundamental right |
|
| Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the criminal jurisdiction of Tribal courts over non-Indians. The case was decided on March 6, 1978, with a 6-2 majority. The court opinion was written by William Rehnquist; a dissenting opinion was... |
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... tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction Jurisdiction Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility... to try and to punish non-Indians |
|
| Ballew v. Georgia Ballew v. Georgia Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 , was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court that held that a Georgia state statute authorizing criminal conviction upon the unanimous vote of a jury of five was unconstitutional. The constitutional minimum size for a jury hearing petty criminal offenses... |
juries in criminal trials may not have fewer than six members | |
| Lakeside v. Oregon | Jury instructions regarding the right against self incrimination and refusal to testify | |
| Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman whom he had ordered to be sterilized.-Facts:In 1971, Judge Harold D... |
judicial immunity | |
| Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. | judicial deference to government agencies Government agency A government or state agency is a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions, such as an intelligence agency. There is a notable variety of agency types... |
|
| Frank Lyon Co. v. United States Frank Lyon Co. v. United States Frank Lyon Company v. United States, 435 U.S. 561 , is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the title owner that acquired depreciable real estate as if the owner were a mere conduit or agent was indeed the owner and, for Federal income tax purposes, had the legal right to take tax... |
ownership of realty in sale-lease Lease A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the lessee to pay the lessor for use of an asset. A rental agreement is a lease in which the asset is tangible property... back for tax deduction Tax deduction Income tax systems generally allow a tax deduction, i.e., a reduction of the income subject to tax, for various items, especially expenses incurred to produce income. Often these deductions are subject to limitations or conditions... for depreciation Depreciation Depreciation refers to two very different but related concepts:# the decrease in value of assets , and# the allocation of the cost of assets to periods in which the assets are used .... purposes. |
|
| McDaniel v. Paty | qualification of ministers to hold political office | |
| Elkins v. Moreno | in-state tuition at state universities for non-citizen students | |
| First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes... |
First Amendment and corporate political contributions | |
| Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia | press freedom in judicial discipline proceedings | |
| Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 , involved a request to stop denying tribal membership to those children born to female tribal members who married outside of the tribe. The mother who made the case pleaded that the discrimination against her child was solely based on sex, which... |
sovereign immunity of Indian tribes | |
| Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States wherein the constitutionality of New York's Uniform Commercial Code provision, which allows a warehouse to enforce a lien upon repossessed goods by selling said goods, was challenged under the... |
upholding section of New York Uniform Commercial Code Uniform Commercial Code The Uniform Commercial Code , first published in 1952, is one of a number of uniform acts that have been promulgated in conjunction with efforts to harmonize the law of sales and other commercial transactions in all 50 states within the United States of America.The goal of harmonizing state law is... permitting repossession Repossession Repossession is generally used to refer to a financial institution taking back an object that was either used as collateral or rented or leased in a transaction. Repossession is a "self-help" type of action in which the party having right of ownership of the property in question takes the property... of goods by warehouse Warehouse A warehouse is a commercial building for storage of goods. Warehouses are used by manufacturers, importers, exporters, wholesalers, transport businesses, customs, etc. They are usually large plain buildings in industrial areas of cities and towns. They usually have loading docks to load and unload... |
|
| Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 , is a United States Supreme Court case that affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out of state elk hunters... |
affirmed the right of the state of Montana to charge higher fees for out of state elk hunters | |
| Taylor v. Kentucky | instructing the jury in a criminal trial on the presumption of innocence and the meaning of proof beyond a reasonable doubt | |
| Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association | state regulation of in-person soliciation of clients by lawyers | |
| Zurcher v. Stanford Daily Zurcher v. Stanford Daily Zurcher v. Stanford Daily 436 U.S. 547 is a United States Supreme Court case from 1978 in which The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, was searched by police after they suspected the paper to be in possession of photographs of a demonstration that took place at the campus'... |
standards for issuing search warrants to third parties; special 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... protections for the press in keeping evidence of possible crimes |
|
| Monell v. Department of Social Services | liability of municipal officials for violations of constitutional rights; they are not liable for merely employing the person who violated the person's rights, and do not enjoy absolute immunity for their actions | |
| Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a Maryland law prohibiting oil producers and refiners from operating service stations within its borders... |
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... and state petroleum Petroleum Petroleum or crude oil is a naturally occurring, flammable liquid consisting of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and other liquid organic compounds, that are found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface. Petroleum is recovered mostly through oil drilling... regulation |
|
| Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill et al., or TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 , was a United States Supreme Court case. It is a commonly cited example of the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius .- Background :The Tennessee Valley Authority started the building of the Tellico Dam... |
interpretation of the Endangered Species Act Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is one of the dozens of United States environmental laws passed in the 1970s. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 28, 1973, it was designed to protect critically imperiled species from extinction as a "consequence of economic growth and... |
|
| Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, , is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the civil procedure subject of ancillary jurisdiction.- Facts :... |
joinder Joinder Joinder is a legal term, which refers to the process of joining two or more legal issues together to be heard in one hearing or trial. It is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair... and diversity jurisdiction Diversity jurisdiction In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are... |
|
| Mincey v. Arizona | 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... does not provide a "murder scene exception" to the warrant-and-probable-cause requirement |
|
| Parker v. Flook Parker v. Flook Parker v. Flook, was a 1978 United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that an invention that departs from the prior art only in its use of a mathematical algorithm is patent-eligible only if the implementation is novel and unobvious. The algorithm itself must be considered as if it were part... |
Algorithm Algorithm In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is an effective method expressed as a finite list of well-defined instructions for calculating a function. Algorithms are used for calculation, data processing, and automated reasoning... s and patent law |
|
| City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states could not discriminate against another state's articles of commerce.-Court's Findings:... |
Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits banning importation of trash into a state | |
| Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Fourth Circuit's ruling that the Price Anderson Act violated equal protection by treating victims of nuclear accidents differently than the victims of other... |
constitutionality of Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026... |
|
| Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision on compensation for regulatory takings.-The New York City Landmarks Law:... |
substantive due process, taking clause, landmarks preservation | |
| Franks v. Delaware Franks v. Delaware Franks v. Delaware, , is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement... |
challenging false statements made in support of issuing a search warrant | |
| Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unconstitutional the admission process of the Medical School at the University of California at Davis, which set aside 16 of the 100 seats for African American... |
racial discrimination, affirmative action | |
| Lockett v. Ohio Lockett v. Ohio Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that sentencing authorities must have the discretion to consider every possible mitigating factor, rather than being limited to a specific list of factors.... |
mitigating evidence required by the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... in capital sentencing proceedings |
|
| FCC v. Pacifica Foundation | obscenity, FCC Federal Communications Commission The Federal Communications Commission is an independent agency of the United States government, created, Congressional statute , and with the majority of its commissioners appointed by the current President. The FCC works towards six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the... policing of obscenity |
|
| Rakas v. Illinois Rakas v. Illinois Rakas v. Illinois, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, in which The Court held that the "legitimately on the property" requirement of Jones v. United States, for challenging the legality of a police search, was too broad... |
asserting 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... rights of third persons |
|
| Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. , is a unanimous 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that state anti-usury laws regulating interest rates cannot be enforced against nationally-chartered banks based in other states... |
State anti-usury laws cannot be enforced against nationally-chartered banks located out of state | |
| Parklane Hosiery Co, Inc. v. Shore | preclusion doctrine | |
| Colautti v. Franklin Colautti v. Franklin Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania's 1974 Abortion Control Act... |
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a U.S. state that is located in the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The state borders Delaware and Maryland to the south, West Virginia to the southwest, Ohio to the west, New York and Ontario, Canada, to the north, and New Jersey to... 's Abortion Control Act held void for vagueness Void for vagueness Void for vagueness is a legal concept in American constitutional law that states that a given statute is void and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. There are several ways, senses or reasons a statute might be considered vague... |
|
| Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner In Thor Power Tool Company v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522 the United States Supreme Court upheld IRS regulations limiting how taxpayers could write down inventory... |
Income tax in the United States 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... ; depreciation Depreciation Depreciation refers to two very different but related concepts:# the decrease in value of assets , and# the allocation of the cost of assets to periods in which the assets are used .... of a publisher's inventory Inventory Inventory means a list compiled for some formal purpose, such as the details of an estate going to probate, or the contents of a house let furnished. This remains the prime meaning in British English... |
|
| Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo | dividing federal railroad retirement benefits under state community property Community property Community property is a marital property regime that originated in civil law jurisdictions and is now also found in some common law jurisdictions... laws |
|
| Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. After being denied a request for court-appointed counsel, Scott was convicted in a bench trial of shoplifting and fined $50... |
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... right to counsel applies only to crimes for which the actual penalty is imprisonment |
|
| Nevada v. Hill | states are not immune from suit in the courts of other states | |
| National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago | the National Labor Relations Act National Labor Relations Act The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in... does not extend to teachers employed by church-operated schools |
|
| New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the constitutionality of an employer's refusal to hire methadone users was upheld.-Background:... |
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and legality of discrimination against methadone Methadone Methadone is a synthetic opioid, used medically as an analgesic and a maintenance anti-addictive for use in patients with opioid dependency. It was developed in Germany in 1937... users |
|
| Delaware v. Prouse | 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... forbids stopping a motorist to check for a driver's license in the absence of reasonable suspicion to believe the driver has violated a traffic law |
|
| United States v. Caceres | 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... does not require exclusion of evidence seized in violation of governmental regulation |
|
| Burch v. Louisiana Burch v. Louisiana Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that invalidated a Louisiana statute allowing a conviction upon a nonunanimous verdict from a jury of six for a petty offense. The statute allowed for conviction if only five jurors agreed, and this was held... |
at a criminal trial, a six-member trial must be unanimous | |
| Addington v. Texas Addington v. Texas Addington v. Texas , , is a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case that set the standard for involuntary commitment for treatment by raising the burden of proof required to commit persons for psychiatric treatment from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and... |
involuntarily committing a person to a mental hospital requires a clear and convincing standard of proof | |
| United States v. 564.54 Acres of Land | Takings Clause only requires payment of fair market value to landowner | |
| Bell v. Wolfish Bell v. Wolfish Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court found that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to perform intrusive body searches on pre-trial detainees.-Significance:... |
rights of accused Rights of the accused The rights of the accused is a "class" of civil and political rights that apply to a person accused of a crime, from when he or she is arrested and charged to when he or she is either convicted or acquitted... persons being held in prison Prison A prison is a place in which people are physically confined and, usually, deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the commission of a crime... pending trial. |
|
| Cannon v. University of Chicago Cannon v. University of Chicago Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 , was a United States Supreme Court case which interpreted Congressional silence in the face of earlier interpretations of similar laws to determine that Title IX of the Higher Education Act provides an implied cause of action.-Facts:Plaintiff Geraldine... |
gender discrimination, implied cause of action Implied cause of action Implied cause of action is a term used in United States statutory and constitutional law for circumstances when a court will determine that a law that creates rights also allows private parties to bring a lawsuit, even though no such remedy is explicitly provided for in the law... |
|
| Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex In Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, , the Supreme Court held that when state law requires the state to grant parole whenever a prisoner satisfies certain conditions, due process requires the state to allow the prisoner to present evidence in support of his... |
due process liberty interest in parole | |
| Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney | government employment preferences for veterans do not constitute sex discrimination | |
| Torres v. Puerto Rico Torres v. Puerto Rico Torres v. Puerto Rico, , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.-Facts:... |
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... applies to Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Puerto Rico , officially the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , is an unincorporated territory of the United States, located in the northeastern Caribbean, east of the Dominican Republic and west of both the United States Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands.Puerto Rico comprises an... |
|
| Sandstrom v. Montana | instructing the jury on the burden of proof in criminal trials | |
| Wilson v. Omaha Tribe Wilson v. Omaha Tribe Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in a land dispute, 25 U.S.C... |
federal law governs an Indian tribe's right of possession to land | |
| Califano v. Yamasaki Califano v. Yamasaki Califano v. Yamasaki, was a case where the United States Supreme Court decided an issue of Federal statutory hearing rights.Under section 204 of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was allowed to make recoupments of erroneous overpayments of... |
procedural due process and the Social Security Act | |
| Fare v. Michael C. | invocation of the Miranda rights by asking for a probation officer | |
| Smith v. Maryland Smith v. Maryland Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.... |
leaves call detail record Call detail record A call detail record , also known as call data record, is a data record produced by a telephone exchange or other telecommunications equipment documenting the details of a phone call that passed through the facility or device... s outside the protection 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... . |
|
| Arkansas v. Sanders | absent exigency, the warrantless search of personal luggage merely because it was located in an automobile lawfully stopped by the police is not justified under the automobile exception to 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... |
|
| United Steel Workers of America v. Weber | regarding affirmative action Affirmative action Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination.-Origins:The term... , reverse discrimination Reverse discrimination Reverse discrimination is a controversial term referring to discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, including the city or state, or in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group such as African Americans being slaves. Groups may be defined in terms of... |
|
| Gannett Co. v. DePasquale | standing of the press to assert violations of the right to a public trial | |
| Bellotti v. Baird Bellotti v. Baird (1979) Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion.In Bellotti vs. Baird, the court, 8-1, elaborates on its parental consent decision of 1976... |
parental notification requirements for abortion are constitutional with a judicial bypass provision | |
| Ybarra v. Illinois | a person's mere presence at a place for which the police have a warrant to search does not allow the police to search that person | |
| Goldwater v. Carter Goldwater v. Carter Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 , was a United States Supreme Court case which was the result of a lawsuit filed by Senator Barry Goldwater and other members of the United States Congress challenging the right of President Jimmy Carter to unilaterally nullify the Sino-American Mutual Defense... |
||
1980–1984
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Vance v. Terrazas Vance v. Terrazas Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that established that a United States citizen cannot have his or her citizenship taken away unless he or she has acted with an intent to give up that citizenship... |
a United States citizen cannot have his or her U.S. citizenship taken away without proof, by a preponderance of evidence, that he or she acted with an intention to relinquish that citizenship. | |
| World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson | Personal jurisdiction, strict liability Strict liability In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability... |
|
| Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Background:A nonprofit environmental-protection organization was denied permission to solicit contributions, pursuant to a village ordinance prohibiting the door-to-door or solicitation... |
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... protection for door-to-door soliciting |
|
| Trammel v. United States | marital privilege under the Federal Rules of Evidence Federal Rules of Evidence The is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments.... |
|
| Rummel v. Estelle Rummel v. Estelle Rummel v. Estelle 445 U.S. 263 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole for William James Rummel for a felony fraud crime amounting to $120.75... |
life in prison with possibility of parole is not cruel and unusual punishment for a habitual offender convicted of passing bad checks | |
| Vitek v. Jones | due process liberty interest in forcible commitment to a mental hospital | |
| Payton v. New York | 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... prohibits warrantless entry into a home to effect a routine felony arrest |
|
| Owen v. City of Independence Owen v. City of Independence Owen v. City of Independence, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held that a municipality has no immunity from liability under Section 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such... |
municipal liability under the Civil Rights Act | |
| Mobile v. Bolden Mobile v. Bolden Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that electoral districts must be drawn without racially discriminatory intent to warrant constitutional protection. In Gomillion v... |
At-Large At-Large At-large is a designation for representative members of a governing body who are elected or appointed to represent the whole membership of the body , rather than a subset of that membership... voting system and the Fifteenth Amendment Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude"... |
|
| Rhode Island v. Innis Rhode Island v. Innis Rhode Island v. Innis, , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. Under Miranda v. Arizona, police are forbidden from interrogating a suspect once he has asserted his right to counsel under the Fifth... |
meaning of "interrogation" under 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... |
|
| Cuyler v. Sullivan | criminal defendant's right to counsel not saddled by a conflict of interest | |
| Godfrey v. Georgia Godfrey v. Georgia Godfrey v. Georgia 446 U.S. 420 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a death sentence could not be granted for a murder when the only aggravating factor was that the murder was found to be "outrageously or wantonly vile."... |
Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... overbreadth of an aggravating circumstance required for imposing the death penalty |
|
| United States V. Mendenhall United States v. Mendenhall -Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit:On the morning of February 10, 1976, Sylvia Mendenhall was walking through the concourse of Detroit Metropolitan Airport after disembarking a commercial flight returning from Los Angeles. Upon her trek through the airport, she... |
police may obtain consent to detain a person and search them 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... |
|
| Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp. Walker v. Armco Steel Corp., 446 U.S. 740 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court further refined the test for determining whether federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state law as opposed to federal law... |
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.... – state statute of limitations vs. 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... |
|
| Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students... |
federalism, freedom of speech | |
| Jenkins v. Anderson Jenkins v. Anderson Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 , is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.-Holding:... |
criminal defendant's silence prior to arrest may be held against him in court | |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon Agins v. City of Tiburon Agins v. City of Tiburon, , was a case where the Supreme Court of the United States held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether or not such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest.This test and... |
zoning Zoning in the United States Zoning in the United States comprise land use state laws falling under the police power rights that State governments and local governments have the authority to exercise over privately owned real property.-Origins and history:... and regulatory taking Regulatory taking Regulatory taking refers to a situation in which a government regulates a property to such a degree that the regulation effectively amounts to an exercise of the government's eminent domain power without actually divesting the property's owner of title to the property.-United States law:In common... s |
|
| Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Chakrabarty Diamond v. Chakrabarty, , was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with whether genetically modified organisms can be patented.-Background:... |
patentability of genetically modified organisms | |
| Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530 , was a United States Supreme Court decision addressing the free speech rights of public utility corporations under the First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth... |
freedom of speech (companies including information inserts with bills) | |
| Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission | commercial speech—energy company advertising | |
| Beck v. Alabama Beck v. Alabama Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a jury must be allowed to consider lesser included offenses, not just capital offense or acquittal.... |
lesser-included instructions in capital murder cases | |
| United States v. Raddatz | federal district court review of determinations by federal magistrate judges | |
| United States v. Payner United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, , is a decision of the United States Supreme Court reversing a district's court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the... |
Court's supervisory power does not allow application of exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law... even where third party's Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated |
|
| Maine v. Thiboutot | 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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... allows suits for violations of federal statutory law |
|
| Adams v. Texas Adams v. Texas Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held on an 8-1 vote that, consistent with its prior opinion in Witherspoon v... |
juror oaths regarding factual deliberations in capital cases | |
| Ohio v. Roberts Ohio v. Roberts Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.- Factual background :... |
hearsay is admissible under the 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... if it bears particular guarantees of trustworthiness; overruled by Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment... |
|
| White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Arizona's taxes that were assessed against a non-Indian contractor that was working exclusively for an Indian tribe on that tribe's reservation were preempted by federal... |
state is not allowed to tax a non-Indian contractor who works exclusively on a reservation | |
| Harris v. McRae Harris v. McRae Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that States that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the... |
states are not required to fund abortions | |
| United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians In United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 the Supreme Court of the United States held that: 1) The enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation... |
seizure of Native American 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 |
|
| Fullilove v. Klutznick Fullilove v. Klutznick Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress could constitutionally use its spending power to remedy past discrimination... |
Equal protection, government contract set-aside for minority owned businesses | |
| Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute , , was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. This case represented a challenge to the OSHA practice of regulating carcinogens by setting the exposure limit "at the lowest technologically feasible level that will not impair... |
administrative law Administrative law Administrative law is the body of law that governs the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law... , determining OSHA's Occupational Safety and Health Administration The United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an agency of the United States Department of Labor. It was created by Congress of the United States under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, signed by President Richard M. Nixon, on December 29, 1970... powers to regulate toxic chemicals in the workplace |
|
| Stone v. Graham Stone v. Graham Stone v. Graham, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public classroom in the State, was unconstitutional, in violation of the... |
requiring privately-funded posting of the Ten Commandments Ten Commandments The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue , are a set of biblical principles relating to ethics and worship, which play a fundamental role in Judaism and most forms of Christianity. They include instructions to worship only God and to keep the Sabbath, and prohibitions against idolatry,... in public school classrooms violates the Establishment Clause |
|
| Upjohn Co. v. United States | attorney-client privilege Attorney-client privilege Attorney–client privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential.... |
|
| Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., was a United States Supreme Court case which found no violation of the equal protection or commerce clauses in a state statute banning retail sale of milk in plastic nonreturnable, nonrefillable containers, but permitting such sale in other nonreturnable,... |
ban on nonreturnable milk containers under the rational basis test of equal protection 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"... law |
|
| Fedorenko v. United States Fedorenko v. United States Fedorenko v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court case which held that people who assisted in Nazi persecutions, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, were not eligible for visas to enter the United States, and thus could not legally obtain United States citizenship... |
revoking the citizenship of a naturalized former concentration camp guard | |
| Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Diehr et al. | patentability of machines controlled by computer software | |
| H. L. v. Matheson H. L. v. Matheson H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.-External links:*... |
upholding parental notification law for minors' abortions | |
| Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County Michael M. vs. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464, was a case brought before the Supreme Court in 1981 over the issue of gender bias in statutory rape laws. The petitioner argued that the statutory rape law discriminated based on gender and was unconstitutional. The court ruled... |
sex discrimination in statutory rape laws | |
| Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corp., 450 U.S. 662 , was a United States Supreme Court case involving the application of the Dormant Commerce Clause to an Iowa state statute restricting the length of tractor trailers.-Facts:... |
Iowa Iowa Iowa is a state located in the Midwestern United States, an area often referred to as the "American Heartland". It derives its name from the Ioway people, one of the many American Indian tribes that occupied the state at the time of European exploration. Iowa was a part of the French colony of New... state restriction on tractor trailer length violated 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... |
|
| Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion under Sherbert v... |
religious pacifism and unemployment benefits under the Free Exercise Clause | |
| Estelle v. Smith Estelle v. Smith Estelle v. Smith, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that, per Miranda v. Arizona , the state may not force a defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination solely for the purposes of sentencing... |
statements taken in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel may not be admitted at a capital sentencing proceeding | |
| Edwards v. Arizona Edwards v. Arizona Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S 477 , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that once a defendant invokes his Fifth Amendment right to counsel police must cease custodial interrogation... |
police may not initiate questioning once a suspect has invoked his rights under 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... |
|
| Parratt v. Taylor Parratt v. Taylor Parratt v. Taylor, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the applicability of Due Process to a claim brought under Section 1983.- Background :... |
mere negligence does not state a claim for a due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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... |
|
| Lassiter v. Department of Social Services | right to counsel in parental termination proceedings | |
| Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat | due process right to commutation of life sentences | |
| Rostker v. Goldberg Rostker v. Goldberg Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional.... |
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"... , women exempt from Selective Service registration |
|
| City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. | punitive damages against municipalities in suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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... |
|
| Haig v. Agee Haig v. Agee Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 , is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving Congressional delegation of authority over control of passports and the right to international travel. Philip Agee was an ex-Central Intelligence Agency agent living in West Germany who in 1974 declared a "campaign to fight the U.S... |
power of Executive Branch to revoke passport Passport A passport is a document, issued by a national government, which certifies, for the purpose of international travel, the identity and nationality of its holder. The elements of identity are name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth.... s |
|
| California v. Prysock | phrasing of the warnings required by 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... |
|
| New York v. Belton New York v. Belton In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , the United States Supreme Court held that when a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile... |
scope of a lawful search incident to the arrest of a passenger in an automobile includes things inside the passenger compartment | |
| Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego In this case, the High Court decided that cities could regulate billboards and regarding commercial outdoor advertising, municipal government could treat it more harshly than noncommercial messages.... |
municipal regulation of billboards under the 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... |
|
| Dames & Moore v. Regan Dames & Moore v. Regan Dames & Moore v. Regan, was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12170, which froze Iranian assets in the United States on November 14, 1979 in response to the Iran hostage crisis which began on November 4, 1979.-Holding:After the inauguration of... |
executive authority over foreign affairs Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs is an American magazine and website on international relations and U.S. foreign policy published since 1922 by the Council on Foreign Relations six times annually... , International Emergency Economic Powers Act International Emergency Economic Powers Act The International Emergency Economic Powers Act , Title II of , is a United States federal law authorizing the President to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has a foreign source.-Provisions:In the... |
|
| Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court considered the lower court's application of its power of forum non conveniens.-Facts:... |
forum non conveniens Forum non conveniens Forum non conveniens is a common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties... doctrine |
|
| Widmar v. Vincent | use of state university classroom space by religious student groups | |
| Polk County v. Dodson | liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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... for violations of constitutional rights allegedly committed by public defenders |
|
| Cabell v. Chavez-Salido Cabell v. Chavez-Salido Cabell v. Chavez-Salido, 454 U.S. 432 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld a state law as constitutional that excluded aliens from positions as probation officers... |
citizenship requirements for probation officers | |
| Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court refused to expand the Flast v. Cohen exception to the taxpayer standing rule.-See also:... |
standing to sue for alleged violations of the Establishment Clause | |
| Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder | municipalities may not allow monopolies under home rule Home rule Home rule is the power of a constituent part of a state to exercise such of the state's powers of governance within its own administrative area that have been devolved to it by the central government.... and instead must rely on policies enacted at the state level. |
|
| Eddings v. Oklahoma | scope of mitigation evidence presented at a sentencing hearing in a capital case required by the Eighth Amendment Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual... |
|
| Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an Indian tribe has the authority to impose taxes on non-Indians that are conducting business on the reservation as an inherent power under their tribal sovereignty.-History:The... |
tribal sovereignty, an Indian tribe is authorized to impose a severance tax on non-Indian oil companies drilling on reservation land | |
| United States v. Lee United States v. Lee United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 , is a 5-to-4 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Constitution's prohibition on lawsuits against the federal government did not extend to officers of the government themselves. The case involved the heir of Mary Anna Custis Lee, wife of... |
religious opposition to participation in Social Security | |
| Rose v. Lundy | exhaustion requirement in federal habeas 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... proceedings |
|
| Santosky v. Kramer | standard of proof in parental termination proceedings must be at least clear and convincing evidence | |
| American Society Of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corp. American Society of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corp. American Society Of Mechanical Engineers v. Hydrolevel Corp., , is a United States Supreme Court case where a non-profit association, for the first time, was held liable for treble damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act due to antitrust violations.... |
non-profit associations are liable for treble damages Treble damages Treble damages, in law, is a term that indicates that a statute permits a court to triple the amount of the actual/compensatory damages to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff, generally in order to punish the losing party for willful conduct. Treble damages are a multiple of, and not an addition... under the Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... due to antitrust violations |
|
| Oregon v. Kennedy | double jeopardy protections for retrial after a mistrial is granted | |
| United States v. Ross United States v. Ross United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 , was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle to be searched as well... |
acceptable scope of a warrantless search of an automobile that has been legitimately stopped and that the police have probable cause to believe contains contraband | |
| Plyler v. Doe Plyler v. Doe Plyler v. Doe, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to illegal immigrants and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each illegal... |
illegal immigrants and public education | |
| Youngberg v. Romeo Youngberg v. Romeo Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding the rights of the involuntarily committed and mentally retarded. Nicholas Romeo was mentally retarded with an infant level IQ and was committed to a Pennsylvania state hospital... |
rights of the involuntarily committed and mentally retarded | |
| Nixon v. Fitzgerald Nixon v. Fitzgerald Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 , was a Supreme Court of the United States court case that dealt with immunity from suit to government officials performing discretionary functions when their action did not violate clearly established law.... |
qualified immunity Qualified immunity Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal law that arises in cases brought against state officials under 42 U.S.C Section 1983 and against federal officials under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the... of executive branch officials |
|
| Harlow v. Fitzgerald Harlow v. Fitzgerald Harlow v. Fitzgerald, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity. It is occasionally falsely stated that the Court held that presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but that question was reserved for... |
absolute immunity for executive branch officials | |
| Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico | right to remove "objectionable" books from school libraries | |
| Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), was a case in which the... |
Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Bankruptcy Code Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy in the United States is governed under the United States Constitution which authorizes Congress to enact "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Congress has exercised this authority several times since 1801, most recently by adopting the Bankruptcy... |
|
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory taking to the extent of the... |
per se rule of takings clause | |
| Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 was a case decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that the single-sex admissions policy of the Mississippi University for Women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United... |
single-sex nursing schools and 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"... |
|
| New York v. Ferber New York v. Ferber New York v. Ferber, , was a United States Supreme Court decision. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment right to free speech did not forbid states from banning the sale of material depicting children engaged in sexual activity.... |
States may ban sexual images of minors even where material does not meet existing tests of obscenity 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... |
|
| Enmund v. Florida Enmund v. Florida Enmund v. Florida, , is a United States Supreme Court case was a 5-4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court applied its capital proportionality principle to set aside the death penalty for the driver of a getaway car in a robbery-murder of an elderly Florida couple.-Background:While... |
felony murder and the death penalty | |
| United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U. S. 858 , is a case that determines the constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions... |
constitutionality of deporting aliens who might give testimony in criminal alien smuggling prosecutions | |
| NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886 was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court finding that although States have broad power to regulate economic activities, they could not prohibit peaceful political activity such as that... |
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... protection for boycotts |
|
| Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas Sporhase v. Nebraska ex rel. Douglas, 458 U.S. 941 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that a Nebraska statute forbidding commercial exportation of water from Nebraska was unconstitutional in that it violated the dormant commerce clause.-External links:* courtesy of... |
Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska is a state on the Great Plains of the Midwestern United States. The state's capital is Lincoln and its largest city is Omaha, on the Missouri River.... statute forbidding commercial exportation of water violated the 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... |
|
| Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. | allowing churches to veto nearby liquor licenses violates the Establishment Clause | |
| Hewitt v. Helms | procedural due process protections for prisoners transferred to administrative segregation | |
| South Dakota v. Neville | admitting evidence of refusal to submit to field sobriety tests does not violate 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... privilege against self-incrimination |
|
| Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. , commonly cited as Moses Cone or Cone Hospital, is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning civil procedure, specifically the abstention doctrine, as it applies to enforcing an arbitration clause in a diversity case... |
Colorado River abstention and enforcement of 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 in diversity |
|
| Briscoe v. LaHue Briscoe v. LaHue Briscoe v. LaHue, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held that Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial.... |
A case where the court held that Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial. | |
| District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court enunciated a rule of civil procedure known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), was a case... |
review of state court decisions by U.S. District Courts | |
| Florida v. Royer | search and seizure of an airline passenger walking through an airport | |
| Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy Metropolitan Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.-Facts:After the meltdown of reactor number 2 at Three Mile Island, The People Against Nuclear Energy contended that restarting reactor number 1 would cause severe psychological trauma... |
environmental law; psychological effects do not need to be evaluated as part of an Environmental Impact Report | |
| Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, , was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning a use tax on paper and ink in excess of $100,000 consumed in any calendar year.... |
Special taxes on ink and paper violate the 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... |
|
| Anderson v. Celebrezze Anderson v. Celebrezze Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States in which Ohio's filing deadline for independent candidates was determined to be unconstitutional.-Background:... |
Filing deadlines for independent candidates may not be extraordinarily early. | |
| City of Los Angeles v. Lyons City of Los Angeles v. Lyons City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the plaintiff, Adolph Lyons, lacked standing to challenge the city police department's alleged chokehold policy. Lyons, an African American, had been subjected to a chokehold after being stopped for... |
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... , requirement of plausible threat of future injury for 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... to issue |
|
| Connick v. Myers Connick v. Myers Connick v. Myers, , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees who speak on matters of possible public concern within the workplace context. It was first brought by Sheila Myers, an Orleans Parish, Louisiana, assistant district attorney... |
Free speech rights of public employees for public speech at work | |
| Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation of Development Commission | 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,... , Nuclear Power Nuclear power Nuclear power is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity. Nuclear power plants provide about 6% of the world's energy and 13–14% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity... |
|
| Commissioner v. Tufts Commissioner v. Tufts Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300 , was a unanimous decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that when a taxpayer sells or disposes of property encumbered by a nonrecourse obligation exceeding the fair market value of the property sold, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may... |
unanimous decision on when a taxpayer sells or disposes of property encumbered by a nonrecourse obligation exceeding the fair market value of the property sold, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may require him to include in the “amount realized” the outstanding amount of the obligation; the fair market value of the property is irrelevant to this calculation. | |
| Kolender v. Lawson Kolender v. Lawson Kolender v. Lawson, , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of laws that allow police to demand that “loiterers” and “wanderers” provide identification.- Facts :... |
requiring loiterers Loitering Loitering is the act of remaining in a particular public place for a protracted time. Under certain circumstances, it is illegal in various jurisdictions.-Prohibition and history:Loitering may be prohibited by local governments in several countries... or wanderers on the streets to present identification and to account for their presence when requested by a police officer is unconstitutional |
|
| Heckler v. Campbell Heckler v. Campbell Heckler v. Campbell, , is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services could rely on published medical-vocational guidelines to determine a claimant’s right to Social Security benefits.... |
HHS Secretary United States Secretary of Health and Human Services The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services is the head of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, concerned with health matters. The Secretary is a member of the President's Cabinet... 's power to promulgate guidelines defining disability |
|
| Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington Regan v. Taxation with Representation, was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Statutes:In the Internal Revenue Code of 1954:... |
restricting 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from engaging in political activity does not violate the 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... |
|
| Bob Jones University v. United States Bob Jones University v. United States Bob Jones University v. United States, , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that the Internal Revenue Service could, without the approval of the United States Congress, revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to established public... |
freedom of religion and tax exemptions | |
| Illinois v. Gates Illinois v. Gates Illinois v. Gates, , is a Fourth Amendment case. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas, and Spinelli v. United States, , thereby replacing the Aguilar–Spinelli test for probable cause with the "totality of the circumstances" test.... |
validity of searches conducted pursuant to warrants predicated on an informant's tip | |
| City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence... |
requiring abortions to be performed in a hospital, restricting abortion to girls over 16, and requiring a doctor to impart certain information before performing an abortion are all unconstitutional | |
| United States v. Place United States v. Place United States v. Place, was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that a sniff by a police dog specially trained to detect the presence of narcotics is not a "search" under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution... |
dog sniff is not a search 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... |
|
| INS v. Chadha | unconstitutionality of the legislative veto Legislative veto -History:Starting in the 1930s, the concurrent resolution was put to a new use—serving as the instrument to terminate powers delegated tothe Chief Executive or to disapprove particular exercises of power by him or his agents... |
|
| Oregon v. Bradshaw Oregon v. Bradshaw Oregon v. Bradshaw, , applied the rule first announced in Edwards v. Arizona, and clarified the manner in which a suspect may waive his right under Miranda v. Arizona to have counsel present during interrogation by the police.-Facts:... |
protections of 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... when the suspect reinitiates conversation with the police |
|
| Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. | First Amendment, definition of commercial speech Commercial speech Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product... |
|
| Solem v. Helm Solem v. Helm Solem v. Helm, , was a United States Supreme Court case concerned with the scope of the Eighth Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Mr. Helm, who had written a check from a fictitious account and had reached his seventh nonviolent felony conviction since 1964, received a... |
life without parole for passing bad checks is cruel and unusual punishment | |
| Jones v. United States Jones v. United States (1983) Jones v. United States, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court, for the first time, addressed whether the United States Constitution allows a defendant, who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a misdemeanor crime, to be involuntarily confined to a mental... |
verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is sufficiently probative of mental illness and dangerousness to justify involuntary commitment Involuntary commitment Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital or in the community .... |
|
| Dirks v. Securities & Exchange Commission | Insider trading Insider trading Insider trading is the trading of a corporation's stock or other securities by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the company... , interpretation of Rule 10b-5 of 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... |
|
| Marsh v. Chambers Marsh v. Chambers Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States... |
Establishment Clause does not forbid state legislatures from employing chaplains | |
| Barefoot v. Estelle Barefoot v. Estelle Barefoot v. Estelle, is a Texas death penalty case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's future dangerousness and the likelihood that he... |
Admissibility Admissible evidence Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—in order to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding... of psychiatrist Psychiatrist A psychiatrist is a physician who specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders. All psychiatrists are trained in diagnostic evaluation and in psychotherapy... 's testimony about a criminal's future dangerousness |
|
| Michigan v. Long Michigan v. Long Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with reasonable suspicion. The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground,... |
“adequate and independent state ground Adequate and independent state ground The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments entered by state courts.- Introduction :... ” |
|
| Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (Betamax case) | copyright Copyright Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time... , VCR "time-shifting", fair use Fair use Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders... |
|
| Southland Corp. v. Keating Southland Corp. v. Keating Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.S. 1 , is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning arbitration. It was originally brought by 7-Eleven franchisees in California state courts, alleging breach of contract by the chain's then parent corporation... |
Federal Arbitration Act Federal Arbitration Act In United States law, the Federal Arbitration Act is a statute that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held in Southland Corp. v. Keating... applies to actions in state courts |
|
| McKaskle v. Wiggins McKaskle v. Wiggins McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court considered the role of standby counsel in a criminal trial where the defendant conducted his own defense... |
standby counsel does not violate criminal defendant's 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... right to present his own case in a criminal trial Trial (law) In law, a trial is when parties to a dispute come together to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court... |
|
| Grove City College v. Bell Grove City College v. Bell Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title IX, which only applies to colleges and universities that receive federal funds, could be applied to a private school that refused direct federal funding, but where a large number of... |
acquiescence to federal anti-discrimination regulations through acceptance of federal funds | |
| Lynch v. Donnelly Lynch v. Donnelly Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 , was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States challenging the legality of holiday decorations on town property.-Background:... |
public religious display on private property | |
| Calder v. Jones | minimum contacts Minimum contacts Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state... for personal jurisdiction based on a libelous publication |
|
| United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a city can pressure private employers to hire city residents, but the same exercise of power to bias private contractors against... |
Privileges and Immunities clause Privileges and Immunities Clause The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner... |
|
| Oliver v. United States Oliver v. United States Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , is a United States Supreme Court decision relating to the open fields doctrine limiting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.... |
reaffirmed open fields doctrine Open fields doctrine The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S... in a case where the defendant grew marijuana in his field |
|
| Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado INS v. Delgado is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether the restrictions placed on government officials by the Fourth Amendment applied to “factory sweeps” by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in particular two factory sweeps conducted in January and September 1977. During... |
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... requirements for administrative searches |
|
| Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S. A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 was an American case decided by the United States Supreme Court, holding that purchases in the United States by an out of state corporation did not establish personal jurisdiction.Helicopteros, a Columbian corporation,... |
Purchases in the United States by a non-resident corporation Corporation A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members. There are many different forms of corporations, most of which are used to conduct business. Early corporations were established by charter... are insufficient under the minimum contacts Minimum contacts Minimum contacts is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to determine when it is appropriate for a court in one state to assert personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state... test to establish in personam In personam In personam is a Latin phrase meaning "directed toward a particular person". In a lawsuit in which the case is against a specific individual, that person must be served with a summons and complaint to give the court jurisdiction to try the case, and the judgment applies to that person and is called... jurisdiction |
|
| Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., , was a product disparagement case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court of the United States... |
appellate courts may make finding of "actual malice" required for libel claims against public figures by the 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... |
|
| Strickland v. Washington Strickland v. Washington In Strickland v. Washington, , the United States Supreme Court established a two-part test for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel... |
standard for ineffective assistance of counsel under the 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... |
|
| Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent | 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... regulation of posting of campaign signs |
|
| Waller v. Georgia | 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... right to a public trial |
|
| South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke South-Central Timber Development v. Wunnicke , was a 1984 constitutional law case. It held unconstitutional Alaska's inclusion of a requirement that purchasers of state-owned timber process it within state before it was shipped out of state... |
market participant Market participant The term market participant is used in United States constitutional law to describe a U.S. State which is acting as a producer or supplier of a marketable good or service. When a state is acting in such a role, it may permissibly discriminate against non-residents. This principle was established by... exception to the 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... |
|
| United States v. Gouveia United States v. Gouveia United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that prisoners in administrative segregation pending the investigation of crimes committed within the prison had no Sixth Amendment entitlement to counsel prior to the initiation of adversary judicial... |
right to counsel for prisoners under administrative segregation | |
| Bernal v. Fainter Bernal v. Fainter Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.... |
citizenship of notaries public Notary public A notary public in the common law world is a public officer constituted by law to serve the public in non-contentious matters usually concerned with estates, deeds, powers-of-attorney, and foreign and international business... |
|
| Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a state could use the eminent domain process to take land overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private... |
land use law, takings to redistribute private property | |
| Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 , the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an alien seeking to avoid deportation proceedings by claiming that he would be persecuted if returned to his native land must show a "clear probability" that he will be persecuted there.-Facts:In... |
aliens must establish a clear probability of persecution Persecution Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another group. The most common forms are religious persecution, ethnic persecution, and political persecution, though there is naturally some overlap between these terms. The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation,... to avoid deportation Deportation Deportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation... |
|
| California v. Trombetta | preservation of breath samples in DUI cases not required under the Due Process Clause 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... |
|
| New York v. Quarles | Miranda rights | |
| Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers... |
judicial review Judicial review Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority... of the interpretation of statutes by government agencies Government agency A government or state agency is a permanent or semi-permanent organization in the machinery of government that is responsible for the oversight and administration of specific functions, such as an intelligence agency. There is a notable variety of agency types... |
|
| Clark v. C.C.N.V. Clark v. C.C.N.V. Clark, Secretary of the Interior, et al. V. Community Creative Non-Violence et al., 468 U.S. 288 was a United States Supreme Court case that challenged the National Park Service's regulation which specifically prohibited sleeping in Lafayette Park and the National Mall... |
Right to sleep in public parks | |
| FCC v. League of Women Voters of California | revert regulation on "editorializing" by government funded broadcasters | |
| Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees Brown v. Hotel and Restaurant Employees, 468 U.S. 491 , is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that a New Jersey state gaming law requiring union leaders to be of good moral character was not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act .-Background:In 1976, New Jersey... |
New Jersey New Jersey New Jersey is a state in the Northeastern and Middle Atlantic regions of the United States. , its population was 8,791,894. It is bordered on the north and east by the state of New York, on the southeast and south by the Atlantic Ocean, on the west by Pennsylvania and on the southwest by Delaware... Casino Control Act was not preempted 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,... by the National Labor Relations Act National Labor Relations Act The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in... |
|
| Roberts v. United States Jaycees Roberts v. United States Jaycees Roberts v. United States Jaycees, , was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's application of a Minnesota antidiscrimination law, which had permitted the United States Junior Chamber to exclude women from full... |
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... freedom of association and excluding women as members of a private club |
|
| Regan v. Time, Inc. | artistic depictions of United States currency | |
| Allen v. Wright Allen v. Wright Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have standing to sue a federal government agency based on the influence that the agency's determinations might have on third parties.-Facts:... |
standing to sue for executive action alleged to promote racial discrimination by third parties | |
| United States v. Leon United States v. Leon United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , was a search and seizure case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.-Background:... |
1985–1989
| Case name | Citation | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mills Music, Inc v. Snyder | assignment of royalties under the Copyright Act | |
| New Jersey v. T. L. O. New Jersey v. T. L. O. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of a search of a public high school student for contraband after she was caught smoking. A subsequent search of her purse revealed drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and... |
search & seizure at a public high school High school High school is a term used in parts of the English speaking world to describe institutions which provide all or part of secondary education. The term is often incorporated into the name of such institutions.... |
|
| Evitts v. Lucey | effective assistance of counsel in appeals in criminal cases | |
| Wainwright v. Witt Wainwright v. Witt -Overview:Wainwright vs. Witt was a Supreme Court case argued on October 4, 1984, and denied a rehearing on March 5, 1985. The defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, appealed to the Supreme Court that his 6th and 14th Amendments were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the... |
selection of jurors in death penalty cases | |
| United States v. Maine | Long Island is an extension of the mainland and the bordering sounds are therefore under state regulatory control | |
| Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 , is a United States Supreme Court decision that holds that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and... |
application of minimum wage Minimum wage A minimum wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly remuneration that employers may legally pay to workers. Equivalently, it is the lowest wage at which workers may sell their labour. Although minimum wage laws are in effect in a great many jurisdictions, there are differences of opinion about... laws to state governments |
|
| Ake v. Oklahoma Ake v. Oklahoma Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an indigent criminal defendant had a right to have the state provide a psychiatric evaluation to be used in the defendant's behalf if he needed it.... |
right of the accused asserting insanity to a state-appointed psychiatrist | |
| Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper | residency requirements for membership in the state bar | |
| Oregon v. Elstad | applying the exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law... to violations of the Miranda 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... rights |
|
| Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill In Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, , the United States Supreme Court held that:*certain public-sector employees can have a property interest in their employment, per Constitutional Due Process. See Board of Regents v... |
due process right of public employees to be heard before termination | |
| Winston v. Lee Winston v. Lee Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for evidence implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion would be "unreasonable" under the Fourth... |
compelled surgical intrusion into an individual's body for 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... violates suspect's 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 |
|
| Heckler v. Chaney Heckler v. Chaney Heckler v. Chaney, , is a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case presented the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency, here the Food and Drug Administration, to exercise its discretion not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to... |
forcing the Food and Drug Administration Food and Drug Administration The Food and Drug Administration is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments... to determine whether it is legal to use certain drugs for lethal injection |
|
| Tennessee v. Garner Tennessee v. Garner Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that... |
Restriction on the use of deadly force Deadly force Deadly force, as defined by the United States Armed Forces, is the force which a person uses, causing—or that a person knows, or should know, would create a substantial risk of causing—death or serious bodily harm... as part of the Fleeing felon rule Fleeing felon rule In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which... . |
|
| Burger King v. Rudzewicz Burger King v. Rudzewicz Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 , is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.- Facts :... |
personal jurisdiction, "purposeful availment" | |
| Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that fair use is not a defense to the appropriation of work by a famous political figure simply because of the public interest in learning of that political figure's account of an historic... |
fair use Fair use Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders... of copyrighted material |
|
| Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth | The Securities Act of 1933 Securities Act of 1933 Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 , in the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1929 and during the ensuing Great Depression... and the "sale of business" doctrine |
|
| Wallace v. Jaffree Wallace v. Jaffree Wallace v. Jaffree, , was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer.An Alabama law authorized teachers to set aside one minute at the start of each day for a moment of "silent meditation or voluntary prayer," and sometimes the teacher of the classroom asked... |
school sponsorship of voluntary religious observances | |
| Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institute at Walpole v. Hill | prison Prison A prison is a place in which people are physically confined and, usually, deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Imprisonment or incarceration is a legal penalty that may be imposed by the state for the commission of a crime... disciplinary decisions to revoke good-time credits must be supported by "some evidence" |
|
| McDonald v. Smith McDonald v. Smith McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the right to petition does not provide absolute immunity to petitioners; it is subject to the same restrictions as other First Amendment rights.... |
Petition Clause Right to petition in the United States In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the federal constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."... of 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... does not provide absolute immunity to charges of defamation |
|
| Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States that though portions of a law against obscenity and prostitution might be invalid, it would not be invalidated as a whole unless severing unconstitutional provisions would result in an... |
regulation of adult bookstores | |
| Mitchell v. Forsyth Mitchell v. Forsyth Mitchell v. Forsyth, , was a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of immunity of cabinet officers from suits from individuals.In 1970, John N... |
civil liability for conducting warrantless wiretaps | |
| Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, notable as "the very last gasp" of the Harvard School of antitrust.... |
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,... and alteration of marketing cooperation agreement |
|
| Thornton v. Caldor | constitutionality of Sabbath laws | |
| Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 was a Supreme Court case which held that a credit reporting agency could be liable in defamation if it carelessly relayed Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985) was a Supreme Court case which held... |
First Amendment, libel in credit reporting | |
| Dowling v. United States | copyright infringement Copyright infringement Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.- "Piracy" :... as theft Theft In common usage, theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent. The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud... |
|
| Aguilar v. Felton | using federal funds to pay teachers in parochial schools under the Establishment Clause | |
| City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432 , was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the mentally retarded.... |
equal protection for the mentally disabled | |
| United States v. Montoya de Hernandez United States v. Montoya De Hernandez United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 , was a case appealed from the Ninth Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding balloon swallowing.... |
constitutionality of body cavity searches at the border 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... |
|
| Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. | Article III and the arbitration Arbitration Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution , is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons , by whose decision they agree to be bound... provisions of FIFRA |
|
| United States v. Bagley | prosecutors must disclose information useful for impeaching government witnesses under 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... |
|
| Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of dual sovereignty , the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing... |
the 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... clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent one state from trying and punishing someone for an act for which he has already been convicted and sentenced by another state |
|
| Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind | constitutionality of public aid paid directly to students of Christian colleges | |
| Vasquez v. Hillery Vasquez v. Hillery Vasquez v. Hillery, is a United States Supreme Court case. An African-American named Booker T. Hillery was convicted for murder by a California grand jury in 1962. Hillery was first accused of stabbing fifteen year old girl named Marlene Miller with scissors in the small town of Hanford... |
race discrimination in selecting grand juries | |
| Cabana v. Bullock | appellate courts may make the finding required by Enmund v. Florida Enmund v. Florida Enmund v. Florida, , is a United States Supreme Court case was a 5-4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court applied its capital proportionality principle to set aside the death penalty for the driver of a getaway car in a robbery-murder of an elderly Florida couple.-Background:While... in the first instance |
|
| Nix v. Whiteside Nix v. Whiteside Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 was a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the effective assistance of counsel during a criminal trial.... |
presentation of perjured testimony at a criminal trial; 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... right to counsel |
|
| Fisher v. City of Berkeley | rent control ordinances and the Sherman Antitrust Act Sherman Antitrust Act The Sherman Antitrust Act requires the United States federal government to investigate and pursue trusts, companies, and organizations suspected of violating the Act. It was the first Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies, and today still forms the basis for most antitrust litigation by... |
|
| Goldman v. Weinberger Goldman v. Weinberger Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 , was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.-Background of the... |
religious headwear for military personnel under the Establishment Clause | |
| Michigan v. Jackson Michigan v. Jackson Michigan v. Jackson, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation... |
suspect confessions and the 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... right to counsel |
|
| Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps | 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... constraints on libel actions; private-figure plaintiffs must show falsity of statements |
|
| Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky Batson v. Kentucky, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race... |
peremptory challenge, racial discrimination | |
| Poland v. Arizona | reimposing the death penalty after the underlying murder conviction has been vacated | |
| California v. Ciraolo California v. Ciraolo California v. Ciraolo, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that warrantless aerial observation of a person's backyard did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.-Background:... |
naked-eye aerial observation of defendant's backyard by police does not violate 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... |
|
| Dow Chemical Co. v. United States | aerial photography of industrial facilities by the EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is an agency of the federal government of the United States charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress... does not violate 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... --decided same day as Ciraolo |
|
| Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. New York State Liquor Authority | price controls on alcoholic beverages and the Commerce Clause Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to... |
|
| Bowen v. Roy Bowen v. Roy Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 , was a United States Supreme Court case which helped to establish limits on freedom of religion in the United States.... |
freedom of religion and Social Security number Social Security number In the United States, a Social Security number is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary residents under section 205 of the Social Security Act, codified as . The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent... s |
|
| Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.... |
requiring "informed consent" before an abortion | |
| Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 , marked the United States Supreme Court's recognition of certain forms of sexual harassment as a violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, and established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be... |
"hostile work environment" as sexual harassment | |
| McMillan v. Pennsylvania | mandatory minimum sentences are not elements of crimes subject to proof beyond a reasonable doubt | |
| Maine v. Taylor Maine v. Taylor Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that there was an exception to the "virtually per se invalidity" rule of the dormant commerce clause... |
exception to 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... |
|
| Anderson v. Liberty Lobby | standard for summary judgment Summary judgment In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.... |
|
| Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist... |
standard for summary judgment Summary judgment In law, a summary judgment is a determination made by a court without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued as to the merits of an entire case, or of specific issues in that case.... |
|
| Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be... |
competence to be executed | |
| Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court | 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... free press guarantee and the right to a transcript of a preliminary hearing |
|
| Bowers v. Hardwick Bowers v. Hardwick Bowers v. Hardwick, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals. Seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court... |
sodomy and substantive due process; overruled by Lawrence v. Texas Lawrence v. Texas Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in... (2003) |
|
| Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, dba Condado Holiday Inn v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico et al. was a 1986 appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether Puerto Rico's Games of Chance Act of 1948 is in legal compliance with the United States Constitution, specifically as... |
Central Hudson test and 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... commercial speech Commercial speech Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product... |
|
| Allen v. Illinois | statements made in civil commitment proceedings for sex offenders are not subject to 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... privilege against self-incrimination |
|
| Bethel School District v. Fraser Bethel School District v. Fraser Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 , was a United States Supreme Court decision involving free speech and public schools. Matthew Fraser was suspended from school for making a speech full of sexual double entendres at a school assembly... |
censorship of obscene speech at a school assembly | |
| Bowsher v. Synar Bowsher v. Synar Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 struck down the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act as an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by Congress because the law empowered Congress to terminate the United States Comptroller General for certain specified reasons, including "inefficiency, 'neglect of duty,'... |
Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act, office of Comptroller General Comptroller General of the United States The Comptroller General of the United States is the director of the Government Accountability Office , a legislative branch agency established by Congress in 1921 to ensure the fiscal and managerial accountability of the federal government... , separation of powers Separation of powers The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic... |
|
| Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 , was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the original jurisdiction of the federal district courts under 28 U.S.C... |
Federal courts cannot claim original jurisdiction Original jurisdiction The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:... for violation of a statute which does not provide a private cause of action Cause of action In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit... |
|
| Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.-Background:... |