Did both Wickard v. Filburn and Strickland v. Washington reach the Supreme Court of the United States?
822ea732b9dc5e3ac5077937ad5a8e8d
Strickland v. Washington Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel's inadequate performance.
e4e2ee630534cfd6adcd1f0db0a1b220
Wickard v. Filburn Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It was a test case that was heard shortly after the United States had entered World War II. The goal of the business interests that financed the legal challenge all the way to the Supreme Court was to convince the Court to declare the entire federal crop support program unconstitutional and thereby end it. The Filburn decision supported what Congress had done, and said the Constitution enabled congressional regulation that included economic activity that was only indirectly related to interstate commerce.
180ca187f92be2f0107e9ae3f7846760
Wisconsin v. City of New York Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.
9bacc8b3a17af212c24ad18e75ffb5f1
Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with "Frothingham v. Mellon". The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
687fb76c416959980b52d4fc0779387b
Louie Willard Strum Louie Willard Strum (January 16, 1890 – July 26, 1954) was an American lawyer and judge.
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.
14fe8db08a42acb5fa600c7e8927a459
Sheldon v. Sill Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Congress may restrict the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts by limiting the subjects those courts may hear, even if those subjects fall within the federal judicial power defined by the United States Constitution.
b41496dfb7e844e4e03f809a69def505
United States v. Harriss United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.
f4231000daaa6c7d490c04fdc333d0b4
United States v. Mendenhall United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) , was a United States Supreme Court case.
a62e76d980a80fb6ae3b417f2296ec21
Crawford v. Washington Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that cross-examination is required to admit prior testimonial statements
fccb777d8abc7cb0313c626b241566d2
Ludwig v. Massachusetts Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 600 (1976) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Massachusetts two-tier court system did not deprive Ludwig of his U.S. Const., Amend. XIV right to a jury trial and did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Const., Amend. V.
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.
671c5327907a11a88badb87c792f4355
Indian Country Jurisdiction Indian country jurisdiction, or the extent which tribal powers apply to legal situations in the United States, has undergone many drastic shifts since the beginning of European settlement in America. Over time, federal statutes and Supreme Court rulings have designated more or less power to tribal governments, depending on federal policy toward Indians. Numerous Supreme Court decisions have created important precedents in Indian country jurisdiction, such as "Worcester v. Georgia", "Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe", and "Montana v. United States".
d494845412dd8733a547f24665ecd9c6
Wickliffe Stratton Wickliffe Stratton (1869–1936) was the fourth Attorney General of Washington from 1901 to 1905. A Republican and Wisconsin state Native, Stratton was 30 when elected, he had previously served as the South Bend City Attorney and Pacific County Prosecutor. While only in office for a single term his concerns were to preserve and promote the state’s power to collect taxes.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
ca5d993ee99ad1ec17b21cc3323192f5
United States v. Wurzbach United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.
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.
05167a5e02e79e7e708384f326aef4ec
Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
c020c8af86ed18fbb88e14a627cc3690
Camreta v. Greene Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the general case the Court may review a lower court’s constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.
86d325a89ff199168f78b74e9c95be17
Tulee v. Washington Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Washington statute prescribing license fees for fishing is invalid as applied to a Yakima Indian convicted on a charge of catching salmon with a net without first having obtained a license, in view of Treaty with Yakima Indians securing to them the exclusive right of taking fish in all streams running through or bordering reservation and right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with citizens of Washington.
5069107dd1248edb5c4f0897e405b038
United States v. Winans United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held that the Treaty with the Yakima of 1855, negotiated and signed at the Walla Walla Council of 1855, as well as treaties similar to it, protected the Indians’ rights to fishing, hunting and other privileges.