Were South Carolina v. Katzenbach and Buckley v. Valeo decided in the same year?
e18ea2252cd143916c6f905d37ce0e35
South Carolina v. Katzenbach South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected a challenge by the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach).
88b7f17ec5aeeac67eacffab21e5d468
Buckley v. Valeo Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) is a US constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a "per curiam" (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken."
561c32c6f77edd10e02d4edafc4bcd7a
South Carolina v. Gathers South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that testimony in the form of a victim impact statement is only admissible during the sentencing phase of a trial if it directly relates to the "circumstances of the crime". This case was later overruled by the Supreme Court decision in "Payne v. Tennessee" 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
a3a25654cfd0110ebc5c597d899848cc
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made. Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore".
51134f5ff1abcd1dbc253ee85ede41e4
Ham v. South Carolina Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524 (1973) , was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning examinations of prospective jurors during voir dire. The Court held that the trial court's failure to "have the jurors interrogated on the issue of racial bias" violated the petitioner's due process right under the Fourteenth Amendment. This right does not extend to any question of bias, but it does not preclude questions of relevant biases.
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.
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.
c1a5ab8450c26e3f365bf86b34733681
Chase Court The Chase Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1864 to 1873, when Salmon P. Chase served as the sixth Chief Justice of the United States. Chase succeeded Roger Taney as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Chase served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Morrison Waite was nominated and confirmed as Chase's successor. The Chase Court presided over the end of the Civil War and much of the Reconstruction Era. During the Chase Court, Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act 1867, giving the court the ability to issue writs of habeas corpus for defendants tried by state courts. The Chase Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendent for the first time, and its narrow reading of the Amendment would be adopted by subsequent courts.
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.
d80ef4e5a1b8ad0c2064fddd0a4cbeff
R v Schoombie R v Schoombie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 21 March 1945, with judgment handed down on 15 May, and Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA and Davis AJA presiding.
609c5a3498322b0f0b51a13cd3cf3fd2
Stansbury v. California Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a "per curiam" decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."<ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"> </ref>
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.
2978654c276daf14978b120ea54582ca
Lambert v. Yellowley Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
f696e16a3ce253c9c42507a1832125c8
Daniels v. United States Daniels v. United States, 531 U.S. 374 (2001), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that a defendant sentenced under that Act could not challenge previous convictions on appeal that were used to increase his new sentence.
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.
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.
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) .
1efaf11c1640bebdd75598fa88da4301
Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon National Bank, 260 U.S. 235 (1922), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with civil procedure and the nature of taking an appeal from the United States District Court.
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.
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.
90f156bb4f7248f0db60fe6c7af4409c
Saucier v. Katz Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the qualified immunity of a police officer to a civil rights case brought through a Bivens action.