Are Bolling v. Sharpe and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt both cases dealing with personal rights?
32b1af5e9f134191156f8f079091823e
Bolling v. Sharpe Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown." The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed." "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive.
c43ffc9361c18221f04c870305c8b8f2
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
6e2573e8afa2f3c25d9a5bdbca3e8cda
Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15 Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court struck down a longstanding New York State statute requiring that to be eligible to vote in certain school district elections, an individual must either own or rent taxable real property within the school district, be the spouse of a property owner or lessor, or be the parent or guardian of a child attending a public school in the district. By a 5-to-3 vote, the court held that these voting requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
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."
b87ea5196fbd203d857bc6090df800de
Freedom of Choice Act The Freedom of Choice Act ( / ) was a bill in the 110th United States Congress which "declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child; terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or terminate a pregnancy after viability when necessary to protect her life or her health."
52ea5af426228cb71dcdf16990693b2b
Frank v. Maryland Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959) , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
f85afa54921d3de8f66ed9bc46f87655
AH v West London Mental Health Trust AH vs West London Mental Health Trust was a landmark case in England, which established a legal precedent in 2011 when Albert Laszlo Haines (AH), a patient in Broadmoor Hospital, a high security psychiatric hospital, was able to exercise a right to a fully open and public mental health review tribunal to hear his appeal for release. The case and the legal principles it affirmed have been described as opening up the secret world of tribunals and National Health Service secure units, and as having substantial ramifications for mental health professionals and solicitors, though how frequently patients will be willing or able to exercise the right is not yet clear.
a8c161d57740f528c419eff1f200e4bd
Black v. United States Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (2011) , is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—"Skilling v. United States" and "Weyhrauch v. United States"—it dealt with the honest services provision,  /1346 § 1346  .
2f16780fb69a515e038f5ced3b6f60ba
Paroline v. United States Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under , the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages. The decision vacated the appellate court decision, 701 F. 3d 749, and remanded it. A legislative fix was subsequently proposed by Marci Hamilton. Ultimately, the Amy and Vicky Child Pornography Victim Restitution Improvement Act was introduced.
cf9a1d45a2803005595ee3cbeae2b4d0
Atkins v. Virginia Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who has intellectual disability. Twelve years later in "Hall v. Florida" the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.
61cb59557958c6bf995a5f0526224435
Overbreadth doctrine In American jurisprudence, the overbreadth doctrine is primarily concerned with facial challenges to laws under the First Amendment. American courts have recognized several exceptions to the speech protected by the First Amendment (for example, obscenity, fighting words, and libel or defamation), and states therefore have some latitude to regulate unprotected speech. A statute doing so is overly broad (hence, overbreadth) if, in proscribing "unprotected" speech, it also proscribes "protected" speech. Because an overly broad law may deter constitutionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows a party to whom the law may constitutionally be applied to challenge the statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment rights of others. See, e.g., "Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N.Y. v. Fox", 492 U.S. 469, 483 (1989), and "R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul", 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Overbreadth is closely related to vagueness; if a prohibition is expressed in a way that is too unclear for a person to reasonably know whether or not their conduct falls within the law, then to avoid the risk of legal consequences they often stay far away from anything that could possibly fit the uncertain wording of the law. The law's effects are thereby far broader than intended or than the U.S. Constitution permits, and hence the law is overbroad.
20bbc0d80f9e3f28cbd84e690236587c
Hanson v. Denckla Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding personal jurisdiction in the context of assets held in trust.
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.
36481c245ef8ed56c08cb0e92ad56542
Bradwell v. Illinois Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.
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.
8dbcc67e82c3d0af083c73d12d464b6e
Patients' rights A patient's bill of rights is a list of guarantees for those receiving medical care. It may take the form of a law or a non-binding declaration. Typically a patient's bill of rights guarantees patients information, fair treatment, and autonomy over medical decisions, among other rights. In the United States there have been a number of attempts to enshrine a patient's bill of rights in law, including a bill rejected by Congress in 2001.
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.
a87b6dfa69f5e3e5e2eb0eea0cfd97ab
Brenner v. Scott In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–"Bostic", "Bishop", and "Kitchen"–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.
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.
45b17586977e578130cba028086ab655
Mental Health Parity Act The Mental Health Parity Act (MHPA) is legislation signed into United States law on September 26, 1996 that requires annual or lifetime dollar limits on mental health benefits to be no lower than any such dollar limits for medical and surgical benefits offered by a group health plan or health insurance issuer offering coverage in connection with a group health plan. Prior to MHPA and similar legislation, insurers were not required to cover mental health care and so access to treatment was limited, underscoring the importance of the act.
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.