Which court case overturned more previous decisions, Ableman v. Booth or Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency?
04bae0d608a7c773c9ca819571936348
Ableman v. Booth Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that State courts cannot issue rulings on federal law that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Supreme Court held that under the Constitution, the federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes.
53fea86666396d77552f30f085814128
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which twelve states and several cities of the United States brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force that federal agency to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants.
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:
b79dc69b39c809eb63d735cb580cd163
Poe v. Ullman Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives, and banned doctors from advising their use, because the law had never been enforced. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe, because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law. The same statute would later be challenged yet again (successfully) in "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965).
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.
5a6381cad04d92f25cb1e7408edb6ab4
Dickinson v. Zurko Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.
ac55b29c3b77b9abd7d7c729df214e7d
Moore v. Dempsey Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.
3b03bbe1afce2236793aaf4eccbdd349
Preston v. Ferrer Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") overrules state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency.
ec063ff4f267b97f07a1b9062d235325
SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC SBC Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 154 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 1998), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that upheld §§ 271-275 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as constitutional against a challenge that the provisions acted as a bill of attainder.
2d9b163442478a95c0b458687c6cc489
United States v. Maine United States v. Maine, 469 U.S. 504 (1985), also known as the "Rhode Island and New York Boundary Case", was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the Long Island and Block Island Sounds in part constitute a juridical bay under Article 7(6), Long Island being an extension of the mainland and the southern headland of the bay, and (b) that the bay closed at the line drawn from Montauk Point at the eastern tip of Long Island to Watch Hill Point on the Rhode Island shore, the waters of the bay west of the closing line being internal state waters, and the waters of Block Island Sound east of that line being territorial waters and high seas. Maine is named in the title of the case because it is the northernmost of the thirteen defendant states with coastline on the Atlantic Ocean in a series of cases related to overlapping claims of state and federal jurisdiction over seas and the seafloor.
160ece483af54cc9d5a1f7f2de018942
Commonwealth v. O'Malley Commonwealth v. O'Malley, 97 Mass. 584 (1867), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that overturned a conviction for embezzlement because the evidence supported a case for larceny, even though the defendant had previously been acquitted of larceny. The case illustrates the problem of gaps in similar common law offenses with technical differences, and this problem was later addressed by consolidation of the common law offenses in things like the Model Penal Code.
331006c2d0cb9e3f2d5bba57e4cb0689
Fight the Merger Fight the Merger is a movement, started by the law firm Bursor & Fisher, opposing the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA. The strategy of the movement is to recruit AT&T customers to file arbitration demands with the American Arbitration Association under the Clayton Antitrust Act against AT&T, pursuant to their arbitration clause. Martha Neil, writing for the "ABA Journal", described the movement as a response to the Supreme Court's April 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, in which the court upheld AT&T's arbitration clause that prohibited class actions. The goal of the movement is to win an injunction against the merger by any arbitrator.
5713fe9b1c3ad9569017ee653afa47f8
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&amp;T Corp. Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007), was a United States (U.S.) Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court reversed a previous decision by the Federal Circuit and ruled in favor of Microsoft, holding that Microsoft was not liable for infringement on AT&T's patent under  /271(f) § 271(f)  .
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.
14aa491fb9dc3650a97409c91730d3ef
Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2011 is a proposed law in the US Congress to reverse the effects of "14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett" and "AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion". Both judgments held, 5 judges to 4 dissenting justices, that employees and consumers were not entitled to claim for rights in public courts if they had agreed to arbitration in a collective or individual agreement. The result has been negation of statutory rights by contract.
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.
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.
f534508eb7e0f945ed5d9cac4a23a5bc
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978), involved a request to stop denying tribal membership to those children born to female (not male) tribal members who married outside of the tribe. The mother who made the case pleaded that the discrimination against her child was solely based on sex, which violated the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The courts decided that "tribal common-law sovereign immunity prevented a suit against the tribe." The decision ultimately strengthened tribal self-determination by further providing that generally, the federal government played no enforcement role over the tribal governments.
e96e68b5d272957aa4b191de1a66e151
Chavez v. Martinez Chavez v. Martinez was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which held that a police officer does not deprive a suspect of constitutional rights by failing to issue a "Miranda" warning. However, the court held open the possibility that the right to substantive due process could be violated in certain egregious circumstances and remanded the case to the lower court to decide this issue on the case's facts.
d9aa69714c80cb52ad25a9c8232e3329
Mossman v. Higginson Mossman v. Higginson, 4 U.S. 12 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "The parties to an equity suit must be so described on the record as to show that the court has jurisdiction. It is not enough that an alien is a party ; the other party must be a citizen. A writ of error may be amended by filling the blank left for the return day, there being enough on the writ to amend by."
ec010b76bf849f99dabd16a4bbbc60cd
Massachusetts Attorney General The Massachusetts Attorney General is an elected constitutionally defined executive officer of the Massachusetts Government. The officeholder is the chief lawyer and law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The officeholder also acts as an advocate and resource for the Commonwealth and its residents in many areas, including consumer protection, combating fraud and corruption, protecting civil rights, and promoting meaningful economic recovery. The current Attorney General is Maura Healey.
fbd28816a38cb94ca6e2d4a3b82530a0
James Milkey James R. Milkey is an American judge and former environmental lawyer who serves as an Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Appeals Court.