Which of the following landmark cases was tried in the Supreme Court: Agostini v. Felton or Canterbury v. Spence?
2d4e40fd9f82858d2996e69877ddec67
Agostini v. Felton Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in "Aguilar v. Felton" (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
96efcf9e6ab5d6c51f9dd587c52ffdb2
Canterbury v. Spence Canterbury v. Spence (464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir. 1972) was a landmark federal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that significantly reshaped malpractice law in the United States. It established the idea of "informed consent" to medical procedures.
65dac06ca3b0c4589c0d06f296ef6c51
Ridge v Baldwin Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40 was a UK labour law case heard by the House of Lords. The judges hearing the case extended the doctrine of natural justice (procedural fairness in judicial hearings) into the realm of administrative decision making. As a result, the case has been described as "the landmark case" that opened up decisions taken by the UK executive to judicial review in English law.
dd2628d0db1ad8785c4fd1cc476e372f
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in a land dispute, 25 U.S.C. § 194 applied only to individuals and not a state, that federal law governed the tribe's right to possession, but that state law was to be used in determining how that applied to the natural movement of a river's boundaries.
07c9bca4b657b8ba8a80a24e4ececf95
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia Landmark Communications v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case that was argued on January 11, 1978 and decided on May 1, 1978.
c99b5ec44dc1bdf726fe1893875c243d
New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.
9bacc8b3a17af212c24ad18e75ffb5f1
Massachusetts v. Mellon Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court rejected the concept of taxpayer standing. The case was consolidated with "Frothingham v. Mellon". The plaintiffs in the cases, Frothingham and Massachusetts, sought to prevent certain federal government expenditures which they considered to violate the Tenth Amendment. The court rejected the suits on the basis that neither plaintiff suffered particularized harm, writing:
7b07d87387cebccd488c194ded46eadc
Jacobson v. Massachusetts Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court's decision articulated the view that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare and is subject to the police power of the state.
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.
46c303dd1896ad64c8752d96a0bcc90d
Supreme Court Case Selections Act The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–352 , 102 Stat. 662 , enacted  27, 1988 , codified at ) is an act of Congress that eliminated appeals as of right from state court decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Act took effect, in most cases, the only avenue by which a litigant could obtain review of most lower court decisions was through the writ of certiorari, which was granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court, rather than available to the litigant as a matter of right.
45a16cb930509afaf7bd68a479debd8a
Rochin v. California Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that added behavior that "shocks the conscience" into tests of what violates due process. This balancing test is often criticized as having subsequently been used in a particularly subjective manner.
56f9e94583c1031b1b13a29f943fe5a8
Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."
7bcd034548aa39cf3f3c54e157366a27
Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
a092e54c3b629d1c493e16333f9a2cd1
Stettinius v. United States Stettinius v. United States, 13,387 (D.C. Cir. 1839), was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that was handed down November, 1839. It reversed the conviction of a defendant for unlawfully passing paper currency, because the indictment did not properly aver, and the verdict did not properly find, that the notes he had allegedly passed were indeed paper currency.
41d12b74aa2f1baf28a5071eca424b49
Dalton v. Specter Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that an Executive Order to shut down the Philadelphia Naval Base was not subject to judicial review. In an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court held that the decision to close the base was not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act because the decision to close the base did not constitute the final action of an agency. Additionally, the Court held that the decision to close the base, which was made pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, was not subject to judicial review because the 1990 Act "commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President".
3fdeffa5a1131c6b9226a339ed52b62a
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to Australian administrative law and to an extent the separation of powers.
65aa2737205b8a5a6efa6f9c54ba43b3
R v Owen R v Owen, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 779 is a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in 2003. The SCC faced the issue of balancing individual rights and liberties with the possibility of future risk of harm or dangerousness to society.
d9aa69714c80cb52ad25a9c8232e3329
Mossman v. Higginson Mossman v. Higginson, 4 U.S. 12 (1800), was an 1800 decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting that "The parties to an equity suit must be so described on the record as to show that the court has jurisdiction. It is not enough that an alien is a party ; the other party must be a citizen. A writ of error may be amended by filling the blank left for the return day, there being enough on the writ to amend by."
15f5a1a56190a81630919b01c6e1a872
Moore v. City of East Cleveland Moore v. City of East Cleveland 431 U.S. 494 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that an East Cleveland, Ohio zoning ordinance that prohibited a grandmother from living with her grandchild was unconstitutional. Writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. ruled that the East Cleveland zoning ordinance violated substantive due process because it intruded too far upon the "sanctity of the family." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment in which he agreed that the ordinance was unconstitutional, but he based his conclusion upon the theory that the ordinance intruded too far upon the Moore's ability to use her property "as she sees fit." Scholars have recognized "Moore" as one of several Supreme Court decisions that established "a constitutional right to family integrity."
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.
6af131d6f7432fb904c60a8313fc26e9
R v Wallace R v Wallace (1931) 23 Cr App R 32 is a leading English criminal case, famous as being the first occasion that a conviction for murder was overturned on the grounds that the verdict was "unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence", as provided for by Section 4(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1907.
d74942d39b75929c3a33fa5a8e3614a4
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 4 February 2003. The case was an influential decision not only in relation to immigration law but to administrative law generally and is an authority for the proposition that Parliament cannot restrict the availability of constitutional writs.