"Scott v. Emerson" was part of of a case in which year ?
e907014a383d8690ee4e30651223459e
William Scott (Missouri) William Scott (June 7, 1804 – 1862) was an American lawyer and judge who served on the Supreme Court of Missouri from 1841 to 1849 and from 1851 to 1862. He also served on the Jefferson City Circuit Court. Justice Scott was the author of the majority opinion in "Scott v. Emerson", 15 Missouri 572 (1852), which was part of the "Dred Scott v. Sandford" case. Scott's opinion, which overturned well-established precedent in Missouri, set the stage for Dred Scott's case in the Supreme Court.
62071c4818c1ef63e09fcc9cc966b6be
Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) , also known simply as the Dred Scott case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court, and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request. The decision was only the second time that the Supreme Court had ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional.
818886cc13f49f6e917d69ac2d3017f9
The Telephone Cases The Telephone Cases were a series of U.S. court cases in the 1870s and 1880s related to the invention of the telephone, which culminated in the 1888 decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the priority of the patents belonging to Alexander Graham Bell. Those telephone patents were relied on by the American Bell Telephone Company and the Bell System—although they had also acquired critical microphone patents from Emile Berliner.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
642bbf0a789c9c5fe6c587c58a6d8e00
Murdock v. City of Memphis Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. 590 (1875), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
8aa05566fc42788463c70e819697374d
Lovell v. City of Griffin Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.
8c473a516b0abab969fa3dd3691626cd
Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) , was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act.
81e69973be259987d998837d3decfba8
Watson v. Jones Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1871), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case was based upon a dispute regarding the Third or Walnut Street Presbyterian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. The Court held that in adjudications of church property disputes, 1) courts cannot rule on the truth or falsity of a religious teaching, 2) where a previous authority structure existed before the dispute, courts should defer to the decision of that structure, and 3) in the absence of such an internal authority structure, courts should defer to the wishes of a majority of the congregation. Because the Walnut Street Presbyterian Church had a clear internal authority structure, the court granted control of the property to that group, even though it was only supported by a minority of the congregation.
9224be6a3df01cfd64cac435afacbe3c
Waite Court The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor. The Waite Court presided over the Gilded Age and the end of the Reconstruction Era. It also played an important role in the 1876 presidential election, as five of its members served on the Electoral Commission that was created to settle the contested election. During the Waite's tenure, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was expanded by the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, which gave federal courts full jurisdiction over federal questions.
269005bfe9f9fce38c0a7f1383efb2c0
Diamond v. Charles Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.
0250e11b822db467e8c3e1eef0ca9809
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ( ; March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932, and as Acting Chief Justice of the United States from January–February 1930. Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his "clear and present danger" opinion for a unanimous Court in the 1919 case of "Schenck v. United States", and is one of the most influential American common law judges, honored during his lifetime in Great Britain as well as the United States. Holmes retired from the Court at the age of 90 years, making him the oldest Justice in the Supreme Court's history. He also served as an Associate Justice and as Chief Justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and was Weld Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, of which he was an alumnus.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
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."
e5698d101fe2612a2ea425019c5b4512
Williams v. Lee Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.
d8f9a326305c0c04612d887334513f39
Meyer v. Nebraska Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that a 1919 Nebraska law restricting foreign-language education violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
b3cb0f8354714f16fd636f30067ddbff
In re Ross In re Ross or Ross v. McIntyre, 140 U.S. 453 (1891) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided on May 21, 1891. It dealt with the application of US law by United States consular courts over foreign sailors on US-flagged ships in countries where the United States exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction.
18ffefb4e2ac094559d38a879a37f6bf
Veazie Bank v. Fenno Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533 (1869) , was a United States Supreme Court case.
a1116b3a4a1f45000dd2f21da42b8c3c
Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) , was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
36481c245ef8ed56c08cb0e92ad56542
Bradwell v. Illinois Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.
de7a72a8dc3da7906a4d38f1892ceb28
Cort v. Ash Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court determined whether a court may imply a cause of action from a criminal statute.
e1703ee2901326414926057135370261
R v Drybones R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the "Canadian Bill of Rights" "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the "Indian Act" (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the "Canadian Bill of Rights".