-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago (1897) - eminent domain
The City of Chicago wanted to connect two disjoint sections of Rockwell Street between 18th and 19th Streets, over private property. This property was owned by various individuals and they did not want to give it up, This case marked the first time that the Court incorporated a specific provision of the Bill of Rights the just compensation requirement of the Fifth Amendment through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied that requirement to the states. -
Gitlow v. New York (1925) - freedom of speech
Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism. Gitlow was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force, Gitlow partly reversed that precedent and established that while the Bill of Rights was designed to limit the power of the federal government, the incorporation principle allows it to be applied to states. -
Near v. Minnesota (1931) - freedom of the press
Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials sought a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press on the grounds that it violated the Public Nuisance Law. The Court established as a constitutional principle the doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding. -
Powell v. Alabama (1932) - right to an attorney in state capital cases
Nine black youths described as, young, ignorant, and illiterate were accused of raping two white women. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings: a total of three trials took one day and all nine were sentenced to death he repeatedly implicated that guarantee. This case was an early example of national constitutional protection in the field of criminal justice. -
De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) - right to peaceful assembly
a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county and a maritime strike in progress in Portland. While the meeting was in progress, police raided it. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute The Court reasoned that to preserve the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly - principles embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment -
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) - free exercise of religion
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. They were travelling door-to-door and approaching people on the street. In a unanimous decision, the Court held the Cantwells’ actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947) - establishment of religion
A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools who benefitted from this law were parochial Catholic schools.Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school. -
Parker v. Gladden (1966) - right to impartial jury
the Multnomah County Circuit Court convicted Lee E. A. Parker of second-degree murder and sentenced him to the Oregon State Penitentiary for a potential maximum of the remainder of his life. The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed his conviction. guilty Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury. The Court noted that there was no dispute over what the bailiff said cross-examination or other constitutional safeguards. -
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) - exclusionary rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against someone in court, 4th Amendment)
Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. brushed aside First Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule. -
Robinson v. California (1962) - protection from cruel and unusual punishment
A jury found defendant guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Defendant sought further review from the United States Supreme Court.the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) - right to petition
187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace for peacefully assembling at the South Carolina State Government. During the course of the peaceful demonstration the police arrested the students after they did not obey an order to disperse. disclosed by the record, the state infringed the students' constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances. -
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) - right to an attorney in felony cases
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Ker v. California (1963) - protection from unreasonable search and seizure
The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from unreasonable search and seizure apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Malloy v. Hogan (1964) - protection against self-incrimination
William Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959 by Hartford, Connecticut police. he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession. -
Pointer v. Texas (1965) - right to confront witnesses
Bob Granville Pointer entered a 7-11 Food Store and robbed the manager, Kenneth W. Phillips, of more than $300. The man then fled the store, and Phillips observed him talking to another man at a nearby intersection. A police dog led officers across the street of a nearby residence. Fourteenth Amendment imposed the right to counsel on the states. He emphasized the importance of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and described it as a fundamental right. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) - right to a speedy trial
charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. At trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant's right to a speedy trial. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment to the states. -
Washington v. Texas (1967) - right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense (subpoena process)
Jackie Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. At trial, Washington alleged that Charles Fuller, already convicted for the same murder, actually shot the victim while Washington attempted to stop the shooting. the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) - right to criminal trial by jury for serious crimes
Gary Duncan, a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. -
Benton v. Maryland (1969) - protection against double jeopardy
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny . He was sentenced to ten years in prison. He won his appeal on the grounds that the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him were selected unconstitutionally. Fifth Amendment as applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment Justice Thurgood Marshall authored the majority opinion. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. Court found that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes. In this case, a unanimous Court extended that right to cover defendants charged with misdemeanors. -
Schilb v. Kuebel (1971) - protection from excessive bail
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. -
Rabe v. Washington (1972) - right to be informed of the 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. -
In re Oliver (1948) - public trial
the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed under the open field doctrine. The open field doctrine states that a citizen's protection from unwarranted search does not extend to open fields. -
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - 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. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. -
Timbs v. Indiana (2019) - protection from excessive fines
Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover for approximately $42,000 in January 2013 using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. During the following four months, Timbs used the vehicle for multiple trips within Indiana to transport heroin. the appropriate vehicle for incorporation is the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than its Due Process Clause.