-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), was a ruling that determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. 5th amendment -
Gitlow v. New York
With Gitlow, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that individuals cannot be ”deprived of liberty without due process of law” applies free speech and free press protections to the states. 1st amendment -
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 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. -
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies freedom of assembly against the states. First amendment -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
A case in which the Court found that it was a violation of the First Amendment to restrict solicitation of religious speech. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
In Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947), the Court considered whether state reimbursements for transportation costs to parents of children who used public busing to get to school, even if they attended a religious school, violated the Constitution. A divided Court ruled that busing, like fire or police protection, is a general program and available on an equal basis to families no matter what their religion. First & Fourteenth amendments. -
In re Oliver
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. 6th amendment -
Mapp v. Ohio
A case in which the Court decided that evidence obtained illegally may not be used against someone in a court of law by the Fourth Amendment. -
Robinson v. California
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 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
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 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. 1st amendment -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. -
Ker v. California
The SCOTUS affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the officers' method of entry was reasonable under the standards of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence showed that the officers had probable cause to enter petitioners' apartment because of the information the officers had prior to their arrival. Under U.S. Const. amend. 9, the lawfulness of arrests for federal offenses was determined by state law, so long as it did not violate the Constitution. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 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. -
Pointer v. Texas
Texas is a case decided 9-0 on April 5, 1965, by the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that state criminal proceedings that do not allow a defendant to cross-examine a witness violate the right to confrontation outlined in the Sixth Amendment. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
N Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a CR demonstration at a restaurant. At trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. The judge continued the case twice when the state moved for a nolle prosequi with leave. This would allow the state to suspend their prosecution indefinitely and return the case to the docket in the future. Klopfer objected, arguing that the motion violated his 6A right to a speedy trial, but the judge granted the state’s request. -
Washington v. Texas
The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington was denied that right in this case. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
The Court held that a crime punishable by two years in prison was a serious crime and not a petty offense. Consequently, defendant was entitled to a jury trial and the trial court erred in denying it. In so ruling, the Court opined that the right to trial by jury guaranteed defendants in criminal cases in federal courts by the U.S. Const. art. III and by the Sixth Amendment was also guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants tried in state courts. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton v. Maryland is a case decided on June 23, 1969, by the United States Supreme Court that incorporated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. The case concerned an individual being reindicted by a grand jury for a charge for which he had been previously acquitted. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the decision of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Schilb v. Kuebel is a case decided on December 20, 1971, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Illinois bail system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of an Illinois bail statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court. -
Rabe v. Washington
William Rabe was convicted under Washington’s anti-obscenity law after a police officer viewed the film Carmen Baby, which included sexually frank scenes, from outside the theater’s fence. Rabe contended that the material was not obscene but rather constituted First Amendment–protected expression. 6th amendment -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 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. 6th amendment -
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government. -
Timbs v. Indiana
In a unanimous ruling, the Court agreed, holding that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against “excessive fines” applies to the states under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.