Did Gomillion v. Lightfoot or Snyder v. Phelps happen first?
17ac76b58465cfa2b59b80a6fb5b9a05
Gomillion v. Lightfoot Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) , was a United States Supreme Court decision that found an electoral district with boundaries created to disenfranchise blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment.
af9bc8cf50ab6b4a6bb5ce9401f2bf63
Snyder v. Phelps Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".
68950626a5cf3dc3e7b615240a616e07
Deacon Phelps Willard Leroy "Deacon" Phelps (March 12, 1867 - 1951) was a Canadian politician, lawyer and businessman. He was a member of the Yukon Territorial Council from 1909 to 1920, 1925 to 1934 and 1940 to 1943, and the owner and manager of the first hydroelectricity company in Yukon.
8ffae9df342388d9b48306abe990d0d1
North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc. North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.
5d4854b8a7215d6df007e3ec7fab9c5c
Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) was a US Supreme Court case. It held that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Also, a suspension without a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
955450ca78ba6b9f3c3bc971de5961c6
United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the second United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the "Lopez" decision, the act was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.
a113fb291ca5bf4fdcec6d11ab1ac00c
Hill v. Wallace Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44 (1922), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the legality of the Futures Trading Act of 1921. The law, approved August 24, 1921, 42 Stat. 187 , c. 86 by the U.S. Congress attempted to institute Federal regulation of grain futures contract trading by imposing a prohibitive tax on futures contracts traded on any market other than those that met the statute's requirements and were regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The court found it was an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing power of Congress. Congress responded to the Court's decision by passing the Grain Futures Act in September 1922 based on the Commerce Clause. The Grain Futures Act was held to be constitutional by the Court in "Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. Olsen" (1923)
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
07fa61a9aa3577b5025984271d76e85e
Siemens v Manitoba (AG) Siemens v Manitoba (AG), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 6, 2003 SCC 3 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on whether provincial plebiscite, used to determine if video lottery terminals (VLTs) should be banned from individual communities, are constitutional. The Court held that the plebiscites were a valid exercises of the province's power to legislate on matters "of a local nature" under section 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that the plebiscite did not violate the rights of the VLT owners under sections 2(b), 7 and 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
8013cc16e88fa37190be36ba4a2f8c93
United States v. Cook In 1831, the Menominee tribe turned over part of their reservation in Wisconsin to the United States for use by the Stockbridge Indians. Some of the tribe cut timber and sold the logs to George Cook. The federal government brought an action in common law known as a "writ of replevin" to recover the logs from Cook. It came to the Supreme Court on a certificate of division. The only side to present an argument was the United States, Cook was not represented before the Court.
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:
d306b2699a8aea275a214355e7232e34
Travelers Casualty &amp; Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas &amp; Electric Co. Travelers Casualty &amp; Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas &amp; Electric Co.
52fb50977bbb1797773e74c5b3e498f4
Re Rizzo &amp; Rizzo Shoes Ltd Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd is a 1998 judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the priority of employees interests when a company declares bankruptcy. The judgment hinged on the interpretation of the Employment Standards Act and has been taken to mark the Supreme Court of Canada's adoption of the purposive approach to legislative interpretation. It has since been frequently cited in subsequent decisions of Canadian courts, nearly every time legislation is interpreted.
8bfb09839a2d53fcc345746d43d1fb42
Wilko v. Swan Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427 (1953) , is a United States Supreme Court decision on the arbitration of securities fraud claims. It had originally been brought by an investor who claimed his broker at Hayden Stone had sold stock to him without disclosing that he and the firm were the primary sellers. By a 7–2 margin the Court held that the provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 barring any waiver of rights under that statute took precedence over the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) requirement that arbitration clauses in contracts be given full effect by federal courts. It reversed a decision to the contrary by a divided panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
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.
f5ebeccf7e0951dccd4e02fcf772be3f
Adderley v. Florida Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.
fba82573c8413f8e9b606d421eaa27b1
Sturgeon v. Frost Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that under section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the National Park Service may only regulate "non-public" lands in Alaska according to Alaska-specific laws.
9f791bdf41fe0b4fea48250af7ccdd3c
R. v. Gowan R. v. Gowan is a March 1998 case tried by the Ontario Court of Justice which ruled that, while being topless as form of protest and free speech is legal, being topless while one engages in a commercial purpose such as prostitution is illegal.
a60c5aa0e92a425ec644d5ef204c01b6
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in "obiter dicta", that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
c87f75c7f335cf7a1919f71b27e33bc5
Murdock v. Pennsylvania Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance requiring solicitors to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise.