Which court decision occurred first, Terry v. Ohio or Presser v. Illinois?
9a89b748982e5d3bc0db943bb369a810
Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
1d2594f91416fa49505511eadaaf9e72
Presser v. Illinois Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." Saying the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state and that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
41d12b74aa2f1baf28a5071eca424b49
Dalton v. Specter Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an Executive Order to shut down the Philadelphia Naval Base was not subject to judicial review. In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that the decision to close the base was not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision to close the base did not constitute the final action of an agency. Additionally, the Court held that the decision to close the base, which was made pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, was not subject to judicial review because the 1990 Act "commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President".
69fcb9cc45dfac25af3c127b0a744d25
Martin v. Ohio Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987), is a criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the presumption of innocence requiring prosecution to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to elements of the offense, and does not extend to the defense of justification, whereby states could legislate a burden on the defense to prove justification. The decision was split 5-4. The decision does not preclude states from requiring such a burden on the prosecution in their laws.
a57543dbbffac5905f4b79ff2831fc26
Lee v. Washington Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld an appeals court decision to forbid segregation of public prisons.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
07c9bca4b657b8ba8a80a24e4ececf95
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
a9b81e463410da8ee459fa6a3fc823dc
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) , was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".
3f121d61517a680c62abc1e6da80362a
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.
fd077d0d32b9dfe119eabeb1108d6203
Vermont v. Brillion Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that when appointed counsel is responsible for delays in criminal proceedings, these delays are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent when conducting speedy trial analysis under "Barker v. Wingo".
8028ab3cfed3a2b201e2aa9fb26081de
Lee v. Weisman Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It ruled that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as "Engel v. Vitale", 370 U.S. 421 (1962) and "Abington v. Schempp", 374 U.S. 203 (1963) .
99e0ea0588030c32c61ac28d93136781
Doyle v. Ohio Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Due Process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
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.
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.
51204fd06852977891e2c0e03682f13c
Narragansett land claim The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark "Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida" (1974), or "Oneida I", decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.
f5b5dcf3bbffe233e155299b015c67bb
Illinois v. Rodriguez Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises.
63c770617e136374a631a6a2ddc81d2c
Wisconsin v. Yoder Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion was determined to outweigh the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.
cc760d205cdf4fe6774354c9ce99b488
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Indian Child Welfare Act governed adoptions of Indian children, and a tribal court had jurisdiction over a state court regardless of the location of birth of the child if the child or the natural parents resided on the reservation.
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.
972d7dbd917f755a625be43dfd87e6ed
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.
81eddb7c1e15c871a2c7448dbdebcf71
United States v. Butler United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.