Which case Obergefell v. Hodges or United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. occurred first ?
4aa4250f9af30ed8ae61ff9f1d437cf4
Obergefell v. Hodges Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) ( ), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in a 5–4 decision.
14dd1de4c151d4d5348a62b628fb37eb
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
4b79eb61002f697c9916cb68a413f6a7
Same-sex marriage in North Dakota Same-sex marriage in North Dakota became legal following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Obergefell v. Hodges" on June 26, 2015, which invalidated state bans on same-sex marriage. Until then the state had restricted marriage to the union of one man and one woman both by statute and in its Constitution.
fc8a896081d028346263d51f7678ef69
Heller v. New York Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld that states could make laws limiting the distribution of obscene material, provided that these laws were consistent with the Miller test for obscene material established by the Supreme Court in "Miller v. California", 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Heller was initially convicted for showing a sexually explicit film in the movie theater which he owned, under New York Penal Law § 235.0 which stated that and individual “is guilty of obscenity when, knowing its content and character, he 1. Promotes, or possesses with intent to promote, any obscene material; or 2. Produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity."
d4b9e528e0652f84ad4162aa75e13700
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.
6578db4e27594f463e549ffd50993e71
Ford v. Wainwright Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of their competency to be executed.
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.
972d7dbd917f755a625be43dfd87e6ed
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.
24cea91f8a89752bda9654018038aace
Niemotko v. Maryland Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the city of Havre de Grace, Maryland had violated the free exercise of Niemotko's religion by not issuing a permit for him and his religious group (the Jehovah's Witnesses) to meet in a public park when other religious and civic groups had been given permits for holding their meetings there.
c135f356f9ebf8a03528a12642d0b668
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case on copyright infringement by non-literal copying of a dramatic work. The Court held that copyright protection cannot be extended to the characteristics of stock characters in a story, whether it be a book, play, or film.
09f256ef3680338e96962ead99a2ef1a
Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., is a case where an appeals court found that although the plaintiff apparently deserved to prevail, it reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case for retrial because it found reversible error in the trial judges’ instructions to the jury. The appellate court found that the judge’s jury instructions, which included the statement that the labor of research by an author is protected by copyright, had been given in error. The court noted that plaintiff, over the objection of the defense, had urged the district court judge to include this instruction.
2a25b2e18767c771e05f4355496725c0
Matal v. Tam Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (previously known as Lee v. Tam), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed, 8–0 (Gorsuch did not participate), the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act's prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
3f121d61517a680c62abc1e6da80362a
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.
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.
f502d008cdc4966efd8204a339e7a758
United States v. Richardson United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974) , was a United States Supreme Court case concerning standing in which the Court held a taxpayer's interest in government spending was generalized, and too "undifferentiated" to confer Article III standing to challenge a law which exempted Central Intelligence Agency funding from Article I, Section 9 requirements that such expenditures be audited and reported to the public.
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.
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.
ca44025bcffa5686a89cbc11010e3c32
United States v. Miller United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). "Miller" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
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).
8e2762e6dd6a03fa2798b199485faf4c
LGBT rights in Vermont The establishment of LGBT rights in the US state of Vermont is a recent occurrence, with the majority of progress having taken place in the past century. It was one of 37 US states, along with the District of Columbia, that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, until the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized equal marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
678b183a7d7e05f58cb01e6a2bca202e
LGBT rights in the United States Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in the United States vary on a basis. Since June 26, 2003, sexual activity between consenting adults of the same sex as well as same-sex adolescents of a close age has been legal nationwide, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Lawrence v. Texas". As of June 26, 2015, all states license and recognize marriage between same-sex couples on account of the Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges".
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.