are Dusky v. United States and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan both landmark United States Supreme Court cases?
0e705c073df5ee0dc884554f63f64efd
Dusky v. United States Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. The Court outlined the basic standards for determining competency.
51d0787a1ab594127a1ae4adde053a5d
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel; and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation or libel case, if he is a public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.
42c31e0c59576854e269f33dddf0e8bf
United States v. Cors United States v. Cors, , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Takings clause of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
cab132dec369b74baba11fdb102c9fdb
Cone v. Bell Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant was entitled to a hearing to determine whether prosecutors in his 1982 death penalty trial violated his right to due process by withholding exculpatory evidence. The defendant, Gary Cone, filed a petition for postconviction relief from a 1982 death sentence in which he argued that prosecutors violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment by withholding police reports and witness statements that potentially could have shown that his drug addiction affected his behavior. In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court held that Cone was entitled to a hearing to determine whether the prosecution's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violated Cone's right to due process; the Court noted that "the quantity and the quality of the suppressed evidence lends support to Cone’s position at trial that he habitually used excessive amounts of drugs, that his addiction affected his behavior during his crime spree". In 2016, Gary Cone died from natural causes while still sitting on Tennessee's death row.
14dd1de4c151d4d5348a62b628fb37eb
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
5d9f0a2f3e0750a82b3d12e8a76cc4d3
Busey v. District of Columbia Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for unlicensed selling of magazines on public sidewalks.
a092e54c3b629d1c493e16333f9a2cd1
Stettinius v. United States Stettinius v. United States, 13,387 (D.C. Cir. 1839), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that was handed down November, 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency, because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find, that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency.
725692c0ce7b280743588e2570444351
Everett Riley York Everett Riley York (June 25, 1860 – December 14, 1940) was an American lawyer who was one of the first law clerks to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving Associate Justice Stanly Matthews from 1886 to 1888.
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
db800dbff69400a423a43386dd7a59b6
Mazer v. Stein Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954), was a copyright case decided by the United States Supreme Court. In an opinion written by Justice Stanley F. Reed, the Supreme Court held that the statuettes—male and female dancing figures made of semivitreous china—used as bases for fully equipped electric lamps were copyrightable, even though the lamp itself was a utilitarian mass-produced item.
0fd179a019db67c375a78019dd3ff2fe
Maureen Mahoney Maureen E. Mahoney (born August 28, 1954) is a former deputy solicitor general and "top appellate lawyer" at the law firm of Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C., who has argued cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. Notably, she argued on behalf of the University of Michigan and its affirmative action program in "Grutter v. Bollinger" (2003), in which the Court decided in favor of Michigan by a 5–4 vote.
7dec3a68aa0d1347f7c0fc96c613bd22
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "<nowiki>[</nowiki> /1982 § 1982  <nowiki>]</nowiki> bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."
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".
7bcd034548aa39cf3f3c54e157366a27
Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
516c40b72ffb2f907b662d919fdfeb5c
United States v. Juvenile Male United States v. Juvenile Male may refer to two "per curiam" opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down at different times in the same case:
d32aa5f496d01d72ff6eadfff2d42b1a
Mancusi v. DeForte Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 , is a 1968 decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of "habeas corpus" by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals. By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.
d43f533cc78e0b0e957654f2b05b3c2b
Lemmon v. New York Lemmon v. New York, or Lemmon v. The People, popularly known as the Lemmon Slave Case, was a proceeding initiated in 1852 by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by the Superior Court in New York City and eventually affirmed by the New York Court of Appeals in 1860 on the eve of the Civil War. The result of issuing the writ was the release of eight slaves including six children, who were brought into New York by their Virginia slave owners, while in transit during relocation to Texas. John Jay (namesake of his grandfather, the diplomat for the Continental Congress and again during the Washington Administration, former Governor of New York and first Chief Justice of the United States) was the guiding spirit behind the litigation. The attorney for the state on appeal (prosecuting for the release of the slaves) was Chester A. Arthur (future president of the United States). Counsel to him were William M. Evarts, Joseph Blunt and Erastus D. Culver.
f198d12784001bc7f941593a94f65adf
Clinton v. City of New York Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) , is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.
bf0fddb7ee1e20ffba77951b5bd6ecc5
William J. Sullivan William J. Sullivan (born March 12, 1939) is a Judge Trial Referee of the Connecticut Superior Court. He has served as Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. He was appointed to the Connecticut Appellate Court by Gov. John G. Rowland in 1997 and remained there until his elevation to the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1999. Justice Sullivan was nominated to be Chief Justice by Gov. Rowland in 2000 and was appointed to the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2001. Justice Sullivan took senior status on April 15, 2006 and continued to serve as a Senior Justice until 2009, when he attained Age 70.
67309d58412e634b16d8252859f9e8ef
John Paul Frank John Paul Frank (November 10, 1917—September 7, 2002) was an American lawyer and scholar involved in landmark civil rights, school desegregation, and criminal procedure cases before the United States Supreme Court.
c98fa78e0b08ee84d9b29a6b09c979fd
Sullivan v. Zebley Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act; particularly, the statutory standard of “comparable severity.” The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the "functional" evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims. The decision was rendered on February 20, 1990.
3c7be180067abf3f7b6ee035513d4daa
John M. Woolsey John Munro Woolsey (January 3, 1877 – May 4, 1945) was a United States federal judge in New York City, known "for his brilliant and poignantly phrased decisions", including several important precedents in First Amendment jurisprudence.