Are Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts and Ware v. Hylton both cases involving the Bill of Rights?
7659ad15d67d72d48ee3f7e9b2ab7590
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals.
b0f633d121572a1f838af9b147df0edc
Ware v. Hylton Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796) is a United States Supreme Court case where a divided court ruled that an article in the Treaty of Paris, which provided that creditors on both sides should meet "no lawful impediment" when recovering "bona fide" debts, took precedence and overruled a Virginia law passed during the American Revolution which had nullified such debts. The full title of the case is Ware, administrator of Jones, Plaintiff in Error v. Hylton et al. It is also known as the British Debt case.
b4e4718fd9760457b2e9119db0940018
United States v. Rogers United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. 567 (1846), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a white man, adopted into an Indian tribe, does not become exempt from the enforcement of the laws prohibiting murder.
d3571e76816750cad5c4e132f03a1c51
Civil Rights Act of 1991 The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award.
1f6953a8f40f152353ac7db6562f5303
Bragdon v. Abbott Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
5d9f0a2f3e0750a82b3d12e8a76cc4d3
Busey v. District of Columbia Busey v. District of Columbia, 319 U.S. 579 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the conviction of a Jehovah's Witness for unlicensed selling of magazines on public sidewalks.
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.
d238d990b98f04be0caf85312fed5f66
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 The Civil Rights Restoration Act, or Grove City Bill, was a US legislative act that specified that recipients of federal funds must comply with civil rights laws in all areas, not just in the particular program or activity that received federal funding. The Act was first passed by the House in June 1984 (375-32) but failed to pass in either chamber after divisions occurred within the civil rights coalition over the issue of abortion. In January 1988, the Senate accepted an amendment by Senator John Danforth (R-MO), which added "abortion-neutral" language to the Bill, a move opposed by the National Organization for Women but resulted in passage of the bill in both houses.
631b13e544028c588bb63d547262ee44
United States v. American Library Ass'n United States v. American Library Association, 539 U.S. 194 (2003), was a decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving E-Rate discounts to install web filtering software as a condition of receiving federal funding. In a plurality opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that: 1.) public libraries' use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons' First Amendment free speech rights; 2.) The Children's Internet Protection Act is not unconstitutional.
dd1d13ae0d405f359d5d964bc83a55c3
State v. Whitmarsh State v. Whitmarsh was a South Dakota Supreme Court case decided on November 18, 1910, which asked whether or not fellatio, or oral sex, should be classified as sodomy. The contemporary federal common law definition of sodomy did not include fellatio. The court ruled that fellatio was an "abominable and disgusting" crime against nature and outlawed it between any two persons, regardless of marital status, sexual orientation or age. The case set a precedent for other states' laws and remained in effect in South Dakota for the next 66 years, until all sodomy laws, including the "crime against nature" statute, were abolished by the South Dakota Legislature in 1976.
9e0644d86104fcfc0f8f49937c86bbe8
Flickinger v Crown Colony of Hong Kong Flickinger v Crown Colony of Hong Kong was the first Bill of Rights case to reach the Court of Appeal. It concerned whether detained persons should be granted the right to appeal unsuccessful applications for Habeas corpus and how statutes should be interpreted in light of the Bill of Rights Act 1990
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.
9657b13e0495795ec597179a73e2cacf
Dobson v. Commissioner Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489 (1943) , was a United States Supreme Court case related to income tax.
b5dacaba43ee44307e7dd94b0d5bcf51
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case holding that the U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
ac55b29c3b77b9abd7d7c729df214e7d
Moore v. Dempsey Moore et al. v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob-dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus. This case was a precedent for the Supreme Court's review of state criminal trials in terms of their compliance with the Bill of Rights.
0199a0c467b8c00cb4fe58df7657b51f
O'Reilly v. Morse O'Reilly v. Morse, also known as The Telegraph Patent Case, is an 1854 decision of the United States Supreme Court that has been highly influential in the development of the law of patent-eligibility in regard to claimed inventions in the field of computer-software related art. It holds, essentially, that an abstract idea, apart from its implementation, is not patent-eligible.
8c473a516b0abab969fa3dd3691626cd
Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) , was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act.
3e63edd858863f901490723429089ea5
Adickes v. S. H. Kress &amp; Co. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case where the majority ruling, written by Justice Harlan, asserted that the burden of showing a lack of factual controversy rests upon the party asserting the summary judgment. It was later challenged by "Celotex Corp. v. Catrett" (1986), but the case was not officially overruled.
bbb7a02b39d1ccdf68bcde3c671cbbc7
Pearson v. Chung Pearson v. Chung, better known as the "pants lawsuit," is a civil case filed in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., at the time an administrative law judge, in the District of Columbia in the United States, following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung, and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish, and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store. The case drew international attention when it went to trial in 2007, and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
635e0aa2ffc12c5a03b0570552220b95
Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.