-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
-
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 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
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 -
DeJonge 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 to freedom of assembly. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 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 -
Everson v. Board of Education of the township of Ewing
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 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. -
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 -
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 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 -
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. -
Ker v. California
Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4. -
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. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 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 -
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
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings -
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 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. -
Washington v. Texas
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 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 -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 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 -
Duncan v. Lousiana
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 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. -
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 -
Rabe v. Washington
Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states -
Mcdonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, is a landmark 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 -
Timbs v. Indiana
Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___, 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.
