-
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the states would have to follow the fifth amendment. This meant that private property could not be taken solely based on compensation. -
Gitlow v. New York
The Court agreed that New York could prohibit endorsing violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. They ruled this because they saw it reasonable to punish speech that threatens its bare exisitance. -
Near v Minnesota
Near was sued based on the accusation that he was violating the Gag Law by publishing stuff in the Saturday Press that was not only untrue but also talking about public officials. The court ruled prior restraint on publication violated the First Amendment -
De Jonge v Oregon
While at a meeting held in a Communist Party De Jonge spoke to the audience about jail conditions during the strike and this strike was soon raided by police. They stated that the assembly violated State's criminal syndicalism statute. Yet after being presented to the Court they found that De Jonge has the right to speak at an assembly of this nature due to the first amendment which applies to the freedom of assembly. -
Cantwell v Connecticut
Newton Cantwell and his sons were going door to door in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood trying to spread an anti-catholic message. While in the process they ended up highly offending two of the people residing in that neighborhood. They were charged with a violation of peace but that was quickly overturned by the first amendment. Stating that it did not advertise any bodily harm and therefore was protected. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
A New Jersey law states that reimbursement will be granted to local schools for transportation. This not only includes public but also private schools as well, most being catholic. A tax-paying citizen did not agree with this and stated that it went against the first amendment because he was aiding a religion that was not his. The Court ruled that it went against nothing and was simply helping parents of all religions get their kids to their schools. -
In re Oliver
The Supreme Court assumed that holding a trial in secret would violate the rights of the people. When in reality there is no violation in this since the trial's court order barring the general public had not been enforced. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Dollree Mapp was convicted of having obscene material after police had searched her house during an admittedly illegal search. She went to court stating that it went against her freedom of expression. The Court came to the conclusion based on the 4th amendment that anything found that went against this amendment is admissable in the eyes of the Court. -
Robinson v. California
A jury found this defendant guilty of being addicted to narcotics under a California statute. After finding no other help the defendant ultimately found help from the Supreme Court. The Court decided that putting someone behind bars for this "illness" goes against the eighth amendment for cruel and unusual punishment. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Charged with breaking and entering Clarence Earl Gideon was not given an attorney during his trial because he was told that an indigent defendant could only be appointed a lawyer in capital cases. He then goes on to be found guilty. Ultimately the Court agrees that it is against the sixth amendment. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
187 black students were arrested for assembling at the South Carolina State Government. After being told to disperse and not obey they begin to get arrested. The Court soon decides that these students being arrested violated their 1st amendment and reversed the charges that had been done unto them. -
Ker v. California
The Court decided that the entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies that were on the case were specifically looking for narcotics. This made the arrest of Kers lawful. -
Malloy v. Hogan
During the gambling raid of 1959, William Malloy was arrested after admitting he was sentenced to a year in jail and a fine of 500 dollars. 90 laters his case comes back up and they ask him to talk about it and he refuses on the basis it might self-incriminate him. The Court agreed with him due to the fifth amendment. -
Pointer v. Texas
A robbing takes place at a 7-11 store one night and a man standing by the store that ironically had money on him was charged and arrested for the robbing. The court later decided that it went against the sixth amendment because Pointer had every right to confront Dillard through counsel. -
Miranda v. Arizona
the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. Finally, the court concluded that the defendant’s interrogation violated the Fifth Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
The state of North Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. -
Washington v. Texas
Jackie Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. Washington alleged that Charles Fuller, already convicted for the same murder, actually shot the victim while Washington attempted to stop the shooting. He argued that refusing to allow Fuller to testify violated his Sixth Amendment. The Court agreed Washington was denied that right in this case. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
a black teenager in Louisiana was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. He requested a jury trial and was denied. The Court holds true to the Bill of Rights and the Sixth Amendment that gives the right to a jury by trial. -
Benton v. Maryland
In Maryland was charged with burglary and larceny. He was found not guilty on the larceny charge but guilty on the burglary. Later they tried to retry him on the larceny charge and he said that it sounded like double jeopardy. The Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was acquitted in this case and they overruled Benton's charges. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
The Court found that the administrative fee before it did not offend due process even though it was imposed on both those who were convicted and those who were acquitted -
Rabe v. Washington
The Police watching over a fence saw a movie that they decided that the movie was too obscene and arrested the drive-in movie manager. Yet The Court decided that as long as adults were the only viewers the material cannot be seen as obscene. The Court reversed the conviction against the manager. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
The case is famous for expanding the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to all individuals who "may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony." The holding in this case enhanced the court's 1963 ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright. -
McDonald v. Chicago
In this case, the plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court decided that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense is applicable to the states. -
Timbs v. Indiana
Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover for approximately $42,000 in January 2013 using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated protection applicable to the states.