Which court case reached a higher court, Cohen v. California or Goodridge v. Department of Public Health?
38e49b3cc1579f1ce92bd04ef8547b05
Cohen v. California Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a man's conviction for the crime of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the public corridors of a courthouse that displayed the phrase, "Fuck the Draft".
475c0ff52c7e228ddb743a86316f6dcc
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003), is a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.
364c90a35032803bb86feefdcd180b8d
California superior courts Superior courts in California are the state trial courts with general jurisdiction to hear and decide any civil or criminal action which is not specially designated to be heard in some other court or before a governmental agency. As mandated by the California Constitution, each of the 58 counties in California has a superior court. The superior courts also have appellate divisions (superior court judges sitting as appellate judges) which hear appeals from decisions in cases previously heard by inferior courts.
2f079af85e5d8160d4503dd58e883fa1
San Francisco Public Defender's Office The San Francisco Public Defender's Office is an agency of the Government of San Francisco. It provides legal assistance to individuals charged with violations of California state law by the San Francisco District Attorney's Office or the City Attorney of San Francisco. Courts within its jurisdiction include the San Francisco Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal for the First District, and the California Supreme Court.
d98e2a70f76a4fb6603ff301c55aabb5
Cobell v. Salazar Cobell v. Salazar (previously Cobell v. Kempthorne and Cobell v. Norton and Cobell v. Babbitt) is a class-action lawsuit brought by Elouise Cobell (Blackfeet) and other Native American representatives in 1996 against two departments of the United States government: the Department of Interior and the Department of the Treasury for mismanagement of Indian trust funds. It was settled in 2009. The plaintiffs claim that the U.S. government has incorrectly accounted for the income from Indian trust assets, which are legally owned by the Department of the Interior, but held in trust for individual Native Americans (the beneficial owners). The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The original complaint asserted no claims for mismanagement of the trust assets, since such claims could only properly be asserted in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
185e5ca02af16d62bd81f6c79e348124
M. C. Sloss Marcus Cauffman ("Max" or "Dick") Sloss (February 28, 1869 – May 17, 1958) was an American lawyer who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from December 19, 1906, to March 1, 1919.
4110b274d344aca608efb0a31a417e39
Thurgood Marshall College Thurgood Marshall College (TMC) is one of the six undergraduate colleges at the University of California San Diego. The college, named after Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and lawyer for the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, emphasizes "scholarship, social responsibility and the belief that a liberal arts education must include an understanding of [one's] role in society." Marshall College's general education requirements emphasize this culture of community involvement and multiculturalism; accordingly Marshall houses the minors in Public Service and Film Studies for the campus. Significant academic programs and departments have come out of the college over many decades: Communication, Ethnic Studies, Third World Studies, African American Studies, Urban Studies & Planning, and Education Studies.
29661aadd2af34bca25821dacc46b413
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).
b91362883198fee9680c8ec9687ca884
Philip Hirschkop Philip Jay Hirschkop (March 14, 1936) is a lawyer who "(started his) career at the top" by taking Mildred and Richard Loving (Loving v. Virginia) on as clients, one month after he graduated from Georgetown University Law Center. The ACLU assigned the case to him and fellow volunteer cooperating attorney Bernard S. Cohen. Before the Supreme Court, Hirschkop and Cohen were permitted to divide (i.e., share) the oral argument for the petitioners.
b162398f1240817182e8c1c9d4760f2f
Hollingsworth v. Perry Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.
2f6480ec6a33306bbfc37f67a32b44c6
California foie gras law The California foie gras law, California S.B. 1520, is a California State statute that prohibits the "force feed[ing of] a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size" (California Health and Safety Code § 25981) as well as the sale of products that are a result of this process (§ 25982). This outlawed the traditional method of producing foie gras in California. The law was enacted in 2004 and went into effect on July 1, 2012. On January 7, 2015, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that the portion of California's law banning the sale of foie gras within the state (California Health and Safety Code § 25982) was preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act, and enjoined the California Attorney General from enforcing it. That decision was overturned on appeal on September 15, 2017.
cf5b0cbe3e7cab6d6427ebb1fb2d79d8
R v Cuerrier R v Cuerrier was a 1998 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that knowingly exposing a sexual partner to HIV constitutes a prosecutable crime (aggravated assault) under Canadian law.
ed8e8a6dd329dca6f725ce7f0ccc46b0
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) , was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims. The warning at issue said:
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.
5a9ee17fdc78d4c9c1e88047a0e41917
Washington v. Glucksberg Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.
cfcf09943e8a31d9fe2d8bb9ba423948
Judiciary of California The Judiciary of California is defined under the California Constitution, law, and regulations as part of the Government of California. The judiciary has a hierarchical structure with the Supreme Court at the apex, California courts of appeal as the primary appellate courts, and the California superior courts as the primary trial courts. Its administration is effected by the Judicial Council and its staff, as well as the relatively autonomous courts. California uses a modified Missouri Plan (merit plan) method of appointing judges, whereby judges are nominally elected at the superior court level (but in practice are first appointed by the Governor) and appointed at higher levels, and are subject to retention elections.
c2ddabe8ea1ee031edd84b11bd409594
Ewing v. California Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003) , is one of two cases upholding a sentence imposed under California's three strikes law against a challenge that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. As in its prior decision in "Harmelin v. Michigan", 501 U.S. 957 (1991) , the United States Supreme Court could not agree on the precise reasoning to uphold the sentence. But, with the decision in "Ewing" and the companion case "Lockyer v. Andrade," 538 U.S. 63 (2003) , the Court effectively foreclosed criminal defendants from arguing that their non-capital sentences were disproportional to the crime they had committed.
c020c8af86ed18fbb88e14a627cc3690
Camreta v. Greene Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the general case the Court may review a lower court’s constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.
609c5a3498322b0f0b51a13cd3cf3fd2
Stansbury v. California Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a police officer's subjective and undisclosed opinion whether a person who had been questioned was a suspect was relevant in determining whether that person had been in custody and thus entitled to the Miranda warnings. In a 9-0 ruling, the Court reversed and remanded the case. In a "per curiam" decision, the Court held that "an officer's subjective and undisclosed view concerning whether the person being interrogated is a suspect is irrelevant to the assessment [of] whether the person is in custody."<ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"> </ref>
26bf0d7b28c22092301ec9ffde2565bf
Jack Komar Judge Jack Komar is a Superior Court Judge of Santa Clara County, California. He succeeded Justice Ronald B. Robie, of the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Before joining the bench in 1985, Judge Komar was in general civil and criminal practice in San Jose, California for 16 years and was deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County from 1966 to 1969. He served as the court’s presiding judge from 1999 through 2000.
81eddb7c1e15c871a2c7448dbdebcf71
United States v. Butler United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the processing taxes instituted under the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act were unconstitutional. Justice Owen Roberts argued that the tax was "but a means to an unconstitutional end" that violated the Tenth Amendment.
801a15488f7cea2df38fd82d1259c840
Gary Cohen (health advocate) Gary Cohen is an American environmental activist and health advocate. He was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2015.