Rogers v. Okin and Kennedy v. Louisiana, are both concerning an Amendment?
35a1e48bef5a8382188d6237cb09eae1
Rogers v. Okin Rogers v. Okin was a landmark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether a mental patient, committed to a state psychiatric facility and assumed to be competent, has the right to make treatment decisions in non-emergency conditions.
0ef277101b4ffb79c62b6e119185eeb9
Kennedy v. Louisiana Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) , is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prohibits imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child in cases where the victim did not die and death was not intended.
14a9303b197ef401504c48eddca7950a
Louisiana v. United States (1965) Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965) , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with an "interpretation test" permitted by the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 alleged to deprive Louisiana Negroes of voting rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1971(a) and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
b40d81ba5021e9f92064e1fad0b6ed2f
Stewart v. United States (1961) Stewart v. United States, 366 U.S. 1 (1961) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that asking a criminal defendant whether he had testified in previous trials violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
c3bffda7e11d594decd5d0e320c7317b
Reconstruction Amendments The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The last time the Constitution had been amended was with the Twelfth Amendment more than 60 years earlier in 1804. The Reconstruction amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war. Their proponents saw them as transforming the United States from a country that was (in Abraham Lincoln's words) "half slave and half free" to one in which the constitutionally guaranteed "blessings of liberty" would be extended to the entire populace, including the former slaves and their descendants.
b5e07f8450a242df22aed3fdecb05128
Luis v. United States Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
1790fe89cd02a8a7561dd29bb2fc2daf
Holmes v. Ford Holmes v. Ford was an American court case in the Oregon Territory that freed a slave family in the territory in 1853. The decision re-affirmed that slavery was illegal in the territory as outlined in the Organic Laws of Oregon that were continued once the region became a U.S. territory. In the decision, Chief Justice of the Oregon Territorial Supreme Court George H. Williams ruled against Nathaniel Ford, freeing the children of Polly and Robin Holmes.
ea6861e8ba56aaa757b0ca8125af8eef
Oregon v. Ice Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009), was a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not inhibit states from assigning to judges, rather than juries, the finding of facts necessary to the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences for multiple offenses.
f3929da736436fbfdfe88c23f6218644
Bryan v. Kennett Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the treaty providing for the Louisiana Purchase, the United States would recognize property interests granted by the previous sovereign governments prior to the Purchase, even if the grant had been inchoate or incomplete. The case involved a disputed title to land in the U.S. state of Missouri, which had previously been under the control of Spain and France before being acquired by the United States. In the late 1700s, the government of Spain had made a possibly incomplete grant of the land to a U.S. citizen, Moses Austin. Spain then lost control of the land to France in 1800, who in turn sold it to the United States. A question later arose as to whether Austin had received sufficient property rights from Spain to allow him to mortgage his land in 1818, or whether necessary rights had somehow passed back to the United States government, making the mortgage invalid and voiding subsequent land transfers that occurred pursuant to Austin's defaulting on the mortgage. Under the Court's holding, the incomplete grant to Austin was valid and sufficient to permit the mortgage.
af0c314623042e2a55be3d6aebcd61f5
Hyde Amendment (1997) The Hyde Amendment (Pub.L. 105-119, § 617, Nov. 26, 1997, 111 Stat. 2519, codified as a note following 18 U.S.C. § 3006A) is a federal statute allowing federal courts to award attorneys' fees and court costs to criminal defendants "where the court finds that the position of the United States was 'vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith.'" In such cases, the federal court may allow victims to recover some of the costs they incurred in fighting the government's investigation and prosecution by authorizing an award of attorneys' fees and court costs to a criminal defendant when the prosecution's evidence is so baseless as to be "frivolous." Compensation awarded under this statute would come out of the budget of the specific federal agency involved, typically the United States Attorney's Office.
0e81a440b40f59371f075db733e2bf0d
Adkins v. Children's Hospital Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923) , is a United States Supreme Court opinion that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
ed5b41aa83a783b3e6fdf24d09ab56a0
Montgomery v. Louisiana Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in "Miller v. Alabama", 567 U.S. ___ (2012) , that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.
6df8af1113a6c784c3d32a2a0e5a5003
Utah v. Strieff Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States limited the scope of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule.
817f216a3cd10efc6ee54fa539d53641
Alexander v. Sandoval Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) , was a US Supreme Court decision that a regulation enacted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a private right of action to allow private lawsuits based on evidence of disparate impact.
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.
7d280ba2b8a8d0b52e189dfe85928b44
Tennessee v. Lane Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
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.
632af477305002520b07ab61bc3ea8f0
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) , is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
257ab2832399f43fa2d7b464c36053f4
United States v. Williams (1951) United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that provides that (protecting US citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws) may only be applied to federal cases and is not available to the state governments.
4906cc9a34edbab00a6007b58bcfd648
In re Oliver In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.
96e00ac5e1a8e58f3ce4bb2ab9234f94
Ravin v. State Ravin v. State, 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975), was a 1975 decision by the Alaska Supreme Court that held the Alaska Constitution's right to privacy protects an adult's ability to use and possess a small amount of marijuana in the home for personal use. The Alaska Supreme Court thereby became the first—and only—state or federal court to announce a constitutional privacy right that protects some level of marijuana use and possession.
42c31e0c59576854e269f33dddf0e8bf
United States v. Cors United States v. Cors, , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and the Takings clause of the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.