What do United States v. Nixon and Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock have in common?
7375563da788bd3bf774cb77900cb089
United States v. Nixon United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision which resulted in a unanimous 8–0 ruling against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver presidential tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to the District Court. Issued on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon. "United States v. Nixon" is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.
300b30b1f32e03bd59e06f55c780fb10
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa chief Lone Wolf, who charged that Native American tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.
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.
b7994d31644e8eef11f3bad3ba5b0c14
United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80 (1907) , regards a case where the Secretary of the Interior has authority to pass on the right of one claiming to be a member of a band of Indians to select land under an agreement ratified by an act of Congress, his jurisdiction does not depend upon his decision's being right.
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
ca5d993ee99ad1ec17b21cc3323192f5
United States v. Wurzbach United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.
f502d008cdc4966efd8204a339e7a758
United States v. Richardson United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.
45a16cb930509afaf7bd68a479debd8a
Rochin v. California Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process. This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.
9224be6a3df01cfd64cac435afacbe3c
Waite Court The Waite Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1874 to 1888, when Morrison Waite served as the seventh Chief Justice of the United States. Waite succeeded Salmon P. Chase as Chief Justice after the latter's death. Waite served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Melville Fuller was nominated and confirmed as Waite's successor. The Waite Court presided over the Gilded Age and the end of the Reconstruction Era. It also played an important role in the 1876 presidential election, as five of its members served on the Electoral Commission that was created to settle the contested election. During the Waite's tenure, the jurisdiction of the federal courts was expanded by the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, which gave federal courts full jurisdiction over federal questions.
8f7b9b08c337dcdb0de69e9158084bbe
Jackson v. Indiana Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
848c125c3392d1f31e24aa5010892aa5
Elkins v. United States Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) , was a US Supreme Court decision that held the "silver platter doctrine", which allowed federal prosecutors to use evidence illegally gathered by state police, to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
2ffe046f6f1112fdfff4174e5ad26445
Nixon Lake Nixon Lake is a lake in Wright County, in the U.S. state of Minnesota.
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.
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.
c135f356f9ebf8a03528a12642d0b668
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case on copyright infringement by non-literal copying of a dramatic work. The Court held that copyright protection cannot be extended to the characteristics of stock characters in a story, whether it be a book, play, or film.
b7493f9860159f40d17512f6f160b848
Ball v. United States Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), is one of the earliest United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause.
ec3269af9dd239f5dc6771d13657d7c0
Herschel Friday Herschel Hugar Friday (February 10, 1922 – March 1, 1994) was an Arkansas bond lawyer whom President Richard Nixon considered appointing to the United States Supreme Court. After the American Bar Association felt Friday's nomination was too controversial due to his firm's representation of the Little Rock School District throughout the 1957 Central High School Crisis, Nixon nominated Lewis Powell instead.
e56dd777621ef75fd4de7bcd5f8adea3
Lone Wolf the Younger Lone Wolf the Younger (ca. 1843-1923) was a Kiowa. Lone Wolf the Younger was a warrior named Mamay-day-te. In 1872, Mamay-day-te saved the son of Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder, during a skirmish with teamsters at Howard Wells, New Mexico. Two years later, the son of the Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder and his nephew were killed by American Troops. Mamay-day-te was among the raid avenging the deaths and counted his first coup during the attack. Old Chief Lone Wolf, Gui-pah-gah, the Elder gave his name to Mamay-day-te. Lone Wolf the Younger led the Kiowa resistance to United States governmental influence on the reservation, which culminated up to the Supreme Court case Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock.
bea349a797d58aedb6f2b4dfd9516f5b
Hanousek v. United States Hanousek v. United States, 176 F.3d 1116, (9th Cir. 1999), was a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that ordinary negligence was the legal standard for criminal negligence under the Clean Water Act.
be99fceeba63f9456090a8014e26f1da
Herbert W. Kalmbach Herbert Warren Kalmbach (October 19, 1921 – September 15, 2017) was an American attorney and banker. He served as the personal attorney to United States President Richard Nixon (1968–1973). He became embroiled in the Watergate scandal due to his fundraising activities in the early 1970s, some of which supported undercover operatives directed by senior White House figures under Nixon. Kalmbach was convicted and served 191 days in jail for his part in the scandal, and lost his license to practice law for a time, although he was later reinstated.
fc8a896081d028346263d51f7678ef69
Heller v. New York Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld that states could make laws limiting the distribution of obscene material, provided that these laws were consistent with the Miller test for obscene material established by the Supreme Court in "Miller v. California", 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Heller was initially convicted for showing a sexually explicit film in the movie theater which he owned, under New York Penal Law § 235.0 which stated that and individual “is guilty of obscenity when, knowing its content and character, he 1. Promotes, or possesses with intent to promote, any obscene material; or 2. Produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity."
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.