-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
was a ruling that incorporated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. -
Gitlow v. New York
was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. -
Near v. Minnesota
was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too. -
Children to religious schools
was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. This is in the first amendment -
In re Oliver
was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. -
Mapp v. Ohio
was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the U.S. federal government, but also to the U.S. states. -
Robinson v. California
is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. -
The prohibition of the 14th amendment
The prohibition of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, which forbids the Federal Government to convict a man of crime by using evidence obtained from him by unreasonable search and seizure, is enforceable against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment by the same sanction of exclusion and by the application of the same constitutional standard prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures," as defined in the Fourth Amendment. -
Malloy v. Hogan
was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey. -
Right to Confront Witness
was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. Which is for the 14th -
Miranda v. Arizona
was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning, -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. -
Washington v. Texas
is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts -
Duncan v. Louisiana
was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states. -
Benton v. Maryland
is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
charged with two traffic offenses, secured pretrial release after depositing 10% of the bail fixed. He was convicted of one offense and acquitted of the other. After he paid his fine, all but 1% of the bail amounting to $7.50 was refunded. -
Rabe v. Washington
was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. -
McDonald v. Chicago
is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. -
Excessive Fines Clause
was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture.
