Which US Supreme Court case was agrued first, Betts v. Brady or City of Boerne v. Flores?
4348bfe4e4175d806ad7115f774bdce5
Betts v. Brady Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state. It was famously overruled by "Gideon v. Wainwright".
6ff5010e970a84ea7feed4d046a02073
City of Boerne v. Flores City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) , was a US Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.
b84c14897e4c060ad41e56b35377e0a1
Brown v. Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
56f9e94583c1031b1b13a29f943fe5a8
Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."
479125e002b5c565edc5d55615d2ce90
Waller v. Florida Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S. 387 (1970), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from successive prosecutions by states and municipalities for offenses based on the same criminal conduct.
3b9f9ce73766d3360e29203a763a5cd8
Marshall v. Marshall Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (Will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, "Stern v. Marshall". She died long before that case was decided.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
635e0aa2ffc12c5a03b0570552220b95
Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
8ef5627cf8c100ebebb67d70d7ec717e
Van Orden v. Perry Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
191903184c2b48b7d6215db8c4f78f4b
Torres v. Puerto Rico Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure applies to Puerto Rico.
c2ddabe8ea1ee031edd84b11bd409594
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in "Harmelin v. Michigan", 501 U.S. 957 (1991) , the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in "Ewing" and the companion case "Lockyer v. Andrade," 538 U.S. 63 (2003) , the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
03ce38f57b3eafe83e3b37042bddc53b
Christensen v. Harris County Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) is a Supreme Court of the United States case holding that a county's policy of requiring employees to schedule time off to avoid accruing time off was not prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
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.
876d81288b58bd9bb7976a7a307129e4
Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned whether the "section one exemption" of the Federal Arbitration Act applied to an employment contract of an employee at Circuit City Stores. The Court held that the exemption was limited to the specific listing of professions contained in the text. This decision meant that general employment contracts, like the one Adams sued under, would have to be arbitrated in accordance with the federal statute.
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.
e2ad94542b20c23f3ad1d56e2ff80b3b
Brady disclosure "Brady" disclosure consists of exculpatory or impeaching information and evidence that is material to the guilt or innocence or to the punishment of a defendant. The term comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case "Brady v. Maryland", in which the Supreme Court ruled that suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a defendant who has requested it violates due process.
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.
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.
a8f1f88153bf9a1181efe6683bc2bdd4
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. When it was first ratified, the Bill of Rights only protected the rights it enumerated from federal infringement, allowing states and local governments to abridge them. However, beginning in 1897 with "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad v. City of Chicago", various portions have been held to be incorporated against state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
a88c77113c3a869812bd58b2a159e772
Sorrells v. United States Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.
128a24212ae84e93f581621414db0d0b
Smith v. California Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), was a U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the freedom of the press. The decision deemed unconstitutional a city ordinance that made one in possession of obscene books criminally liable because it did not require proof that one had knowledge of the book’s content, and thus violated the freedom of the press guaranteed in the First Amendment. "Smith v. California" continued the Supreme Court precedent of ruling that questions of freedom of expression were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. It also established that in order for one to be criminally liable for possession of obscene material, there must be proof of one’s knowledge of the material.