United States v. Cruikshank and Ex parte Young were both cases decided in which US court?
fdae1f7876e1bb7a7318c704bd50d185
United States v. Cruikshank United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
6f429ed4a23f4099931a2782b5ea25ea
Ex parte Young Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) , is a United States Supreme Court case that allows suits in federal courts against officials acting on behalf of states of the union to proceed despite the State's Sovereign immunity, when the State acted unconstitutionally.
f4231000daaa6c7d490c04fdc333d0b4
United States v. Mendenhall United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) , was a United States Supreme Court case.
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.
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.
0c34d6a7b8bdabb990d75c36d64a271a
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) is an independent appellate judicial body authorized by Congress and established by the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force pursuant to the exclusive authority under  /866 § 866  (a). The Court hears and decides appeals of United States Air Force court-martial convictions and appeals "pendente lite". Its appellate judges are assigned to the Court by The Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate General instructs court-martial convening authorities to take action in accordance with the Court's decisions.
a34af4c96fa1f0fefb2db6e14ea1dc64
Ex parte Endo Ex parte Endo, or Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast—which they had found not to violate citizen rights in their "Korematsu v. United States" decision on the same date—the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.
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.
bde9e8fb2a866cc8056a94a4b5451c6a
People v. Ireland People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522 (1969), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that first introduced the merger doctrine in that state.
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.
c19a91b9e8ac6292beb8a5450dd8e200
Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
079cd1b8d014bd40509c720b688f0897
Criminal law in the Chase Court The Chase Court (1864–1873) issued thirty-five opinions in criminal cases over nine years, at a significantly higher rate than the Marshall Court or Taney Court before it. Notable such cases include "Ex parte Milligan" (1866), "Pervear v. Massachusetts" (1866), "Ex parte McCardle" (1867, 1869), "Ex parte Yerger" (1868), and "United States v. Kirby" (1868).
2f16780fb69a515e038f5ced3b6f60ba
Paroline v. United States Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under , the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages. The decision vacated the appellate court decision, 701 F. 3d 749, and remanded it. A legislative fix was subsequently proposed by Marci Hamilton. Ultimately, the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act was introduced.
d9be937ccff533c523922377a142e400
Seling v. Young Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250 (2001) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a challenge to a civil commitment statute for sexual predators in Washington state. The petitioner tried to differentiate this case from previous ones before the Supreme Court which upheld civil commitment statutes. The Court rejected the challenge to the law over the objection of a single Justice.
9f596ff0242b03f3e27ed78af52c4d4d
United States v. Moore United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1973), was a case decided by the D.C. Circuit that refused to recognize a common law affirmative defense of addiction in a criminal prosecution for the possession of heroin.
be261191c69c8846a76d2da11c62c3b2
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 17 June 1999. The case concerned the constitutional validity of cross-vesting of jurisdiction, in particular, the vesting of state companies law jurisdiction in the Federal Court.
783facb0813f0386dcdeeaa1d53ff4f5
Humphrey's Executor v. United States Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) , was a United States Supreme Court case decided during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt presidency, regarding the powers that a President of the United States has to remove certain executive officials of a "quasi-legislative," "quasi-judicial" administrative body created by Congress, for purely political reasons and without the consent of Congress.
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.
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.
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.
f268a0f05d6d08fa6489ba53317bcf7f
United States v. Lawrence United States v. Lawrence, 3 U.S. 42 (1795) , was a United States Supreme Court case determining that the Supreme Court cannot normally compel a federal trial judge to proceed in a case which he feels is lacking sufficient evidence to proceed. In the case, the court held:
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.