Town of Greece v. Galloway and United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. were both cases heard by what court?
34da59ed747114c7666183b0bd921556
Town of Greece v. Galloway Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece, and that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
99244d2e32539558e42ab7d98bdd0300
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that were not dependent upon congressional delegation.
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.
818886cc13f49f6e917d69ac2d3017f9
The Telephone Cases The Telephone Cases were a series of U.S. court cases in the 1870s and 1880s related to the invention of the telephone, which culminated in the 1888 decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the priority of the patents belonging to Alexander Graham Bell. Those telephone patents were relied on by the American Bell Telephone Company and the Bell System—although they had also acquired critical microphone patents from Emile Berliner.
d1b57f358d6bc22cbcc35e12dde607ec
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”
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.
069cbadcd7eb961fdc6a5a073cfb94cd
Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. Weeks, 430 U.S. 73 (1977) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.
c0fc7e8c5b38915062d27dfe218d6e6f
Georgia Court of Appeals The Georgia Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the U.S. state of Georgia.
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.
b0cd73c2f32e86b4eecc12098419e794
Breedlove v. Suttles Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937) , is an overturned United States Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of requiring the payment of a poll tax in order to vote in state elections.
278937bc5c3a9ccac72417db5507dc8e
R v Mills R v Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision where the Court upheld the newly enacted rape shield law when challenged as a violation to section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rape shield law was the second of its type, the first having been struck down in "R. v. Seaboyer". Accordingly, this case is often cited as an example of judicial dialogue.
163209c1a4b7488c04866156cf7f3abe
Harper v. Paradise Harper v Paradise 210 S.E.2d 710 (1974) is a case heard by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
5b2bcf8507b6c3e25e5fda87fb282878
Kidd v. Pearson Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
363ee1535aa948cfe69646cf283368c0
Wainwright v. Witt Wainwright vs. Witt, 470 U.S. 1039 (1985) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the "voir dire" process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
46b845df7f94292038efcbef2d60a95c
Ware &amp; Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce. The Court also held that a state tax on persons engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery was not a regulation of interstate commerce, and that the imposition of the tax was not beyond the power of the state.
c4c1c6a7e252b51f3485a4ccddeb61b2
Galloway v. United States Galloway v. United States was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court determined that a directed verdict does not deprive litigants of their right to a trial by jury in civil cases under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
60aaa1712e7c8590945cf3bc72c2cc2f
DeFunis v. Odegaard DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on April 23, 1974, that was determined to be moot, and therefore could not go forward. American student Marco DeFunis, who had been denied admission to the University of Washington School of Law in the state of Washington, and then had been provisionally admitted during the pendency of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months at the time the decision was rendered.
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.
e93245c7d71cebcd21ff2ac0066bd718
Hawkins v. McGee Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929), is a leading case on damages in contracts handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court. It has come to be known as the "Hairy Hand" case from the circumstances, because a subsequent decision uses the phrase.
bd740a8e3d487769bb5e9ad2922abceb
R v Hape R v Hape (2007) is a case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on cross-border crime. An investment banker was convicted on money laundering. The investigation involved the search of his property in Turks and Caicos by the local police. He claimed his rights under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated by the search.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
a113fb291ca5bf4fdcec6d11ab1ac00c
Hill v. Wallace Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the legality of the Futures Trading Act of 1921. The law, approved August 24, 1921, 42 Stat. 187 , c. 86 by the U.S. Congress attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the statute's requirements and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court found it was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress responded to the Court's decision by passing the Grain Futures Act in September 1922 based on the Commerce Clause. The Grain Futures Act was held to be constitutional by the Court in "Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen" (1923)