Worker: What are Marsh v. Chambers and Planned Parenthood v. Casey known for being?
8635eaac368cc3e2daa66054a684e671
Marsh v. Chambers Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.
4764a3576434b96af5fa31c70428be40
Planned Parenthood v. Casey Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion was challenged. The Court's plurality opinion reaffirmed the central holding of "Roe v. Wade" stating that "matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions. "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" differs from "Roe," however, because under "Roe" the state could not regulate abortions in the first trimester whereas under "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" the state can regulate abortions in the first trimester, or any point before the point of viability, and beyond as long as that regulation does not pose an undue burden on women's fundamental right to an abortion. Applying this new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.
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.
269005bfe9f9fce38c0a7f1383efb2c0
Diamond v. Charles Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.
1f8de59fe6dd0da49b5f474dd493dc4d
Susan Louise Marsh Susan Louise Marsh was an American activist, author, and children's advocate. Marsh is responsible for ending the sole guardianship laws in the state of Missouri through her persistent dedication for change.
ad011fd63c1c6214cf8d54aff73cbaff
California Code of Civil Procedure The California Code of Civil Procedure (commonly abbreviated to Code Civ. Proc. in formal legal citations or just CCP in treatises and other less formal contexts) was enacted by the California State Legislature in March 1872 as the general codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California, along with the three other original California Codes. It contains most California statutes that govern the filing and litigation of lawsuits in the Superior Courts of California, as well as legal notices that must be given in a variety of circumstances. It also includes statutes of limitations that control the period of time during which a lawsuit must be commenced. It also contained some statutes governing the legal profession, but those were later relocated into the Business and Professions Code.
7e73bfe011cf192649e1ab0dcd5d0905
Hudson v. Craft Hudson v. Craft ( , 1949) is a United States court case defining how the court defines consent as a defense to an intentional harm.
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.
351f417789cceae8b1bf885be4d4b225
Camp Casey, Crawford, Texas Camp Casey was the name given to the encampment of anti-war protesters outside the Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas during US President George W. Bush's five-week summer vacation there in 2005, named after Iraq War casualty US Army Specialist Casey Sheehan.
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.
9438e53a7d6ca28a5d49421976e7a271
Hodgson v. Minnesota Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.
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.
9f082ab295cce105257bd50962f20d6c
Camp v. United States Camp v. United States, 113 U.S. 648 (1885), was an action brought by the appellant on April 13, 1869 to recover a balance alleged to be due as compensation for collecting and delivering to the United States a large amount of cotton in bales which was captured and abandoned property within the meaning of the acts of Congress. He claimed to have performed the services in question under an arrangement or agreement with an agent of the US Treasury Department which the Secretary of the Treasury subsequently recognized as a valid contract with the government. He admits certain payments on his claim, and asks judgment for the further sum of $80,000. The court below dismissed his petition.
941c97dae6c0683710ff97df95365e59
First National Bank of Montgomery v. Daly First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly, Dec. 9, 1968 (Justice Court, Credit River Township, Scott County, Minnesota), also known as the Credit River Case, was a case tried before a justice of the peace in Minnesota in 1968. The decision in that case is sometimes cited by opponents of the United States banking system.
c88e4363a341e48679bb3cf692d48392
R. v. Smith There are a number of court cases by the name of "R. v. Smith":
30c08f114a72e0f4fe48c4bd56621f4d
Lane v. Holder Lane v Holder (District case 1:1 lcv503, Appellate case 11-1847) is a civil lawsuit filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of plaintiff Michelle Lane, a resident of the District of Columbia, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Eric Holder, Attorney General for the United States, and W. Steven Flaherty, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police. The suit seeks to bar the Defendants from enforcing a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits the purchase of firearms by a non-resident of the state in which the purchase is made, and from enforcing a Virginia State statute prohibiting the sale of handguns, outright, to any non-resident of the State. The case was dismissed by the District Court judge Gerald Bruce Lee. An appeal by Lane and the SAF is pending before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
6e89cba9df4a0138ce3386bc09ccebcf
Coleman v. Schwarzenegger Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, docket no. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (E.D. Cal.), is a federal class action civil rights lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 alleging unconstitutional mental health care by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
e249cb2987aca72d6feabc1ebb07c78f
March for Life (Washington, D.C.) The March for Life is an annual rally protesting abortion, held in Washington, D.C., on or around the anniversary of the United States Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion in the case "Roe v. Wade". The march, whose stated mission is "to provide all Americans with a place to testify to the beauty of life and the dignity of each human person", advocates in overturning "Roe v. Wade". It is organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.
37bacfe171c87d83d343dab6394c858a
Martin Mahoney Martin Vincent Mahoney (February 22, 1915 - August 22, 1969) was a Scott County, Minnesota justice of the peace who presided over the initial trial in the case of "First National Bank of Montgomery v. Jerome Daly", Dec. 9, 1968 (Justice Court, Township of Credit River, Scott County, Minnesota), also known as the "Credit River" case. This case has been cited by various conspiracy theorists and anti-Federal Reserve System protesters as authority for the proposition that foreclosure is illegal. According to a statement published at the Minnesota State Law Library web site, the "Credit River" decision is not legal precedent, since it was undertaken by a justice of the peace (see also Subject-matter jurisdiction), and was eventually overruled by other court decisions. The defendant, Jerome Daly, was a longtime tax protester and attorney who was later disbarred by a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
46b845df7f94292038efcbef2d60a95c
Ware &amp; Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce. The Court also held that a state tax on persons engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery was not a regulation of interstate commerce, and that the imposition of the tax was not beyond the power of the state.
66f168283cc83078018e7d901bbedde0
Chambers v. Maroney Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 (1970) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the "Carroll" doctrine in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway (or street) as in Carroll. After a gas station robbery, a vehicle fitting the description of the robbers' car was stopped. Inside were people wearing clothing matching the description of that worn by the robbers. They were arrested, and the car was taken to the police station where it was later searched.
3b9f9ce73766d3360e29203a763a5cd8
Marshall v. Marshall Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a federal district court had equal or concurrent jurisdiction with state probate (Will) courts over tort claims under state common law. The case drew an unusual amount of interest because the petitioner was Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith (whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall). Smith won the case, but unsolved issues regarding her inheritance eventually led to another Supreme Court case, "Stern v. Marshall". She died long before that case was decided.