-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
5th Amendment.Eminent Domain.The Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. While the Court warned of the danger of a government that did not have any restraints in exercising eminent domain, fair compensation could address that danger. -
Gitlow v. New York
1st Amenedment. Freedom of Speech. This case is connected to the Fourteenth Amendment, adressing citizenship rights and the fact that each citizen is equally protected under the law. Case said that the government had extended the limitations on certain federal government authority from the First Amendment in accordance to free speech, had been extended to the governments of the individual states as well. -
Near v. Minnesota
1st Amendment. Freedom of the Press (Prior Restraint). Near published a newspaper of hateful words. There was a Minnesota gag law made in 1925 to prevent hateful speech so that there would be no riots or uprisings. Near didn't think the content was a threat to the government.The 1st amendment can be applied through the 14th amendment, which ensures "life, liberty, and prosperity". Case that made prior restraint unconstitutional. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
1st Amendment. Freedom of Assembly.The Supreme Court held that the 14th amendment's, due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. The Court had found that DeJonge had the right to organize a Communist Party and to speak at its meetings, even though the party advocated industrial or political change in revolution. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
1st Amendment. Free Exercise of Religion. Connecticut ruled, unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that required individuals making door-to-door religious solicitations to obtain a state license. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
1st Amendment. Freedom of Religion. The Court had 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. -
In re Oliver
6th Amendment. Public Trail. The judge-jury immediately sentenced him to sixty days in jail. Under these circumstances of haste and secrecy, petitioner, of course, had no chance to enjoy the benefits of counsel, no chance to prepare his defense, and no opportunity either to cross examine the other grand jury witness or to summon witnesses to refute the charge against him. Right of a public trial was applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment -
Mapp v. Ohio
4th Amendment. Exclusionary Rule.This case was based on the Fourth Amendment, stating that obtaining evidence in violation of the fourth amendment in terms of search and seizure could not be done. Evidence had to be gained when that who was called into question for a crime was aware of it. -
Robinson v. California
8th Amendment. Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Court reversed Robinson's sentence, holding that "a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted as a criminal, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the state or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment." -
Edwards v. South Carolina
1st Amendment. Freedom to Petition. Black petitioners were arrested for allegedly lawful protests in South Carolina. The court ruled that the petitioners were arrested for unpopular views, not protesting, and therefore, the arrests were unconstitutional. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
6th Amendment. Right to Counsel in felony cases. 9 votes for Gideon (petitioner), 0 vote(s) against. the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. Violated the Sixth Amendment, or the right to a speedy and public trial and impartial jury because Gideon had the right to an attorney. -
Ker v. California
4th Amendment. Protection against unreasonable search and seizure (warrants). may determine the reasonableness of a search, however the standard must meet the standards set by previous federal precedence. -
Malloy v. Hogan
5th Amendment. Protection against self-incrimination. Man plead guilty to a gambling raid in Hartford, Connecticut in 1959. Later, was ordered to testify for a different case, yet refused to for it would incriminate himself on other accounts regarding his 1959 conviction. Threatened with imprisonment for not cooperating. Man challenges ruling and SC upholds his 5th Amendment Rights (Right to not incriminate oneself) , incorporated by the 14th. -
Pointer v. Texas
6th Amendment . Right to confront an accuser. This case was the stepping stone to the right granted to an accused by the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him, which includes the right of cross-examination, is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and is made obligatory on the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
6th Amendment. Right to a Speedy Trial. The 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial is fundamental to the criminal justice process and therefore applies to state criminal trials through the 14th Amendment's due process clause -
Washington v. Texas
6th. Right to a compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense (subpoenas). A case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. State law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they would be likely to lie for each other on the stand. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
6th Amendment. Right to Trial by jury in criminal cases. By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. -
Benton v. Maryland
5th Amendment. Protection Against Double Jeopardy. The supreme court case concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. He was convicted for larceny and burglary, but acquitted of larceny and convicted of burglary. His jurors had been selected under unconstitutional provisions, giving him a second chance to be tried, he then was found guilty -
Schilb v. Kuebel
8th Amendment. Protection against excessive bail.The Supreme Court upheld a statute concerning bail that unfairly targeted indigent individuals -
Rabe v. Washington
6th Amendment. Right to be informed of nature of accusations. A State may not criminally punish the exhibition of a motion picture film at a drive-in theater where the statute assertedly violated has not given fair notice that the location of the exhibition was a vital element of the offense. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
6th Amendment. Right to counsel for imprisonable misdemeanors. Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor charge in the Florida. It carried with six months in jail and $1,000 fine. During trail he was sentenced to 90 days in jails. -
McDonald v. Chicago
2nd Amendment. Right to keep and bear arms. Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. -
Timbs v. Indiana
8th Amendment. Protection against excessive fines. Indiana trial court ruled that forfeiting the vehicle would be "grossly disproportional" to the gravity of Timbs's offense and therefore unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and an Indiana intermediate court agreed.