Were Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. and New York Times Co. v. United States both Supreme Court cases?
50d51a82fc5cd0b5bd8f86e4f395d3f0
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.
c075afdc3cc1218e0cb7bd4ba40c8fd2
New York Times Co. v. United States New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" newspapers to publish the then-classified "Pentagon Papers" without risk of government censorship or punishment.
f1aebd65ceabee442f03c729bd5d37a8
Michael Patrick Michael Ryan Patrick is an attorney and author and is frequently quoted in well-known media. Michael Patrick is known for working on intellectual property cases against some of the world's largest companies, including a partial role against Fisher-Price, Inc. More recently, Michael Patrick was featured in the August 2010 edition of the National Defense Magazine for his views on the rising costs of anti-bribery, anti-corruption and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) compliance. Michael Patrick was also an attorney on an amicus brief in the widely covered Fox Television Studios v. FCC case. The case was decided on July 13, 2010 by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the FCC's policy violates the First Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives that were at issue. The FCC's order and the indecency policy underlying it was struck down. Michael Patrick has also worked on behalf of GLOCK, Jessica Simpson, Jay Geils and numerous others.
1ad16954ea893e9664f5c2f2beba3b20
United States v. Carolene Products Co. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), was an April 25, 1938 decision by the United States Supreme Court. The case contains for its famous "Footnote Four" in which the Court established the system of heightened scrutiny for laws targeting "discrete and insular minorities," compared with the lower scrutiny applied for economic regulations, as in this case.
0dee25991966a20f0d30fdbde54bda03
Jesse J. Phillips Jesse J. Phillips (February 22, 1837 – February 16, 1901) was an American jurist.
60d4fb9a0b756323d0fe984b37abf913
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which it was decided that cities could regulate billboards and that municipal governments could not treat commercial outdoor advertising more harshly than noncommercial messages.
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
2a25b2e18767c771e05f4355496725c0
Matal v. Tam Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (previously known as Lee v. Tam), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed, 8–0 (Gorsuch did not participate), the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act's prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
516c40b72ffb2f907b662d919fdfeb5c
United States v. Juvenile Male United States v. Juvenile Male may refer to two "per curiam" opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States handed down at different times in the same case:
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.
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.
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.
8a2f8bfe3f2ae8d60627552e2922ffff
Thornhill v. Alabama Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court case heard in 1938 and decided in 1940. It reversed the conviction of the president of a local union for violating an Alabama statute that prohibited only labor picketing. Thornhill was peaceably picketing his employer during an authorized strike when he was arrested and charged. In reaching its decision, Associate Justice Frank Murphy wrote for the Supreme Court that the free speech clause protects speech about the facts and circumstances of a labor dispute. The statute in the case prohibited all labor picketing, but "Thornhill" added peaceful labor picketing to the area protected by free speech.
c88e4363a341e48679bb3cf692d48392
R. v. Smith There are a number of court cases by the name of "R. v. Smith":
8b8f275808c0e615b34baa9ade7cb9c2
Phillips v. AWH Corp. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), was a case decided by the Federal Circuit that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
a286af87580a6580e224228a19f8e6bf
Nashville, Chattanooga &amp; St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States Nashville, Chattanooga &amp; St. Louis Railway Co. v. United States
3976fa67de8fa82ba9950d99556c1f15
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
ca44025bcffa5686a89cbc11010e3c32
United States v. Miller United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). "Miller" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
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.”
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.
6221017545a8d4b516f894d79231d222
Thomas W. Phillips (judge) Thomas W. Phillips (born 1943) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
725692c0ce7b280743588e2570444351
Everett Riley York Everett Riley York (June 25, 1860 – December 14, 1940) was an American lawyer who was one of the first law clerks to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving Associate Justice Stanly Matthews from 1886 to 1888.