Which Supreme Court case was ruled on first; Glossip v. Gross or New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.?
68d04a0003850610abb8cb1e6c5b55ca
Glossip v. Gross Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5–4, that lethal injections using midazolam do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court found that condemned prisoners can only challenge their method of execution after providing a known and available alternative method.
da95ef731703c67c8abb3d592786f2d2
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co. New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 US 552 (1938) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices.
ed00b6673bb20c3348930a11af8a935d
Samuel R. Lowery Samuel R. Lowery (December 9, 1830-c1900) was an African American preacher and lawyer, who was the first black lawyer to argue a case before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Lowery was sponsored to the Supreme Court Bar by Belva Ann Lockwood, the first woman admitted to the bar, in 1880. Lowery was the fifth black attorney to be admitted to the bar. Later in his life, he worked for African American industrial education and attempted to establish silk farming in Alabama.
14a9303b197ef401504c48eddca7950a
Louisiana v. United States (1965) Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with an "interpretation test" permitted by the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 alleged to deprive Louisiana Negroes of voting rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1971(a) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
6fac1794cbb28b791d591ffea7cdc05a
E. D. Nixon Edgar Daniel Nixon (July 12, 1899 – February 25, 1987), known as E. D. Nixon, was an African-American civil rights leader and union organizer in Alabama who played a crucial role in organizing the landmark Montgomery Bus Boycott there in 1955. The boycott highlighted the issues of segregation in the South, was upheld for more than a year by black residents, and nearly brought the city-owned bus system to bankruptcy. It ended in December 1956, after the United States Supreme Court ruled in the related case, "Browder v. Gayle" (1956), that the local and state laws were unconstitutional, and ordered the state to end bus segregation.
1efaf11c1640bebdd75598fa88da4301
Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.
ef5f0a556c921c94f3a393d8320b7aa6
Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Simkins v. Cone, 323 F.2d 959 (1963), was a federal case, reaching the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that "separate but equal" racial segregation in publicly funded hospitals was a violation of equal protection under the United States Constitution.
4c10a42cd25f6a4cb238732cb928f90a
Rosen v. United States Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29 (1896) , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the concept of obscenity. In a decision written by Justice Harlan, the Court upheld the conviction of the defendant to 13 months hard labor and a fine of $1 for allegedly using the United States Postal Service to send material that was deemed "obscene, lewd and lascivious".
533bf81861a16c123243acb2f6c13876
Hansberry v. Lee Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) , is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that "res judicata" may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class. The defense in the present case argued that Carl Augustus Hansberry (father of Lorraine Hansberry) could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit.
1ad16954ea893e9664f5c2f2beba3b20
United States v. Carolene Products Co. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case contains for its famous "Footnote Four" in which the Court established the system of heightened scrutiny for laws targeting "discrete and insular minorities," compared with the lower scrutiny applied for economic regulations, as in this case.
a57543dbbffac5905f4b79ff2831fc26
Lee v. Washington Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld an appeals court decision to forbid segregation of public prisons.
f58fd5ccb5f67f01f94afcdcb6955472
Stanley v. Georgia Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , was a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials.
f969fa5013caa536530992102d8e607d
R v Carto R v Carto is an important case in South African law, heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division on March 12, 1917, with judgment handed down on March 17. Graham JP (who wrote the judgment) and Sampson J were the presiding officers. It is significant for its contribution to the principle of legality, with its stipulation that "to render any act criminal in our law, there must be some punishment affixed to the commission of the act," and that "where no law exists affixing such punishment there is no crime in law."
8198559a8eaedf6380ee99648125d1ac
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case which began on April 30, 1953 over the validity of the local Washington Acts of 1872 and 1873. The Acts prohibited segregation in public places within the District. With the court’s support, the legal ramifications of the 1872 and 1873 Acts could once again be enforced. The case transpired during growing racial tension in the nation’s capital. Throughout Washington, the black community had grown tired of unfair treatment regarding housing, businesses, and education. But, change came soon enough through the courts. On June 8, 1953, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the segregating policies practiced by Thompson’s Cafeteria were illegal, marking a huge victory for the national black community.
1790fe89cd02a8a7561dd29bb2fc2daf
Holmes v. Ford Holmes v. Ford was an American court case in the Oregon Territory that freed a slave family in the territory in 1853. The decision re-affirmed that slavery was illegal in the territory as outlined in the Organic Laws of Oregon that were continued once the region became a U.S. territory. In the decision, Chief Justice of the Oregon Territorial Supreme Court George H. Williams ruled against Nathaniel Ford, freeing the children of Polly and Robin Holmes.
09b3bd29c5ad09acfdc52b2ded9bd69d
Central Green Co. v. United States Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the meaning of the words "flood or flood waters" within the Flood Control Act of 1928. The Court concluded that the law did not always apply to federal flood control facilities.
829cc57658ea8c5d0e1fd4171455f7da
Davenport v. Washington Education Ass'n Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.
cb69f83ac483851d7537533c0dd9d61b
American Communications Ass'n v. Douds American Communications Association v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 (1950) , is a 5-to-1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Taft–Hartley Act's imposition of an anti-communist oath on labor union leaders does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is not an "ex post facto" law or bill of attainder in violation of of the United States Constitution, and is not a "test oath" in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.
90daeabbebd8c31fb03e39500d117790
Pace v. Alabama Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in "McLaughlin v. Florida" and in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia". "Pace v. Alabama" is possibly the first recorded interracial sex court case in America.
7511acedde8d336734829c8cda5a22df
Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 4th 67 (1992), was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court’s decision held that restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service establishments in California can be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons from foreign objects—including natural food parts—that are left in food.
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
fed15c02e51e972c06b0604a59fcc787
FTC v. Dean Foods Co. FTC v. Dean Foods Co, 384 U.S. 597 (1966) , is a 1966 decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may sue in federal court to obtain a preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo against the consummation of a merger that the agency persuasively contends violates the antitrust laws.