Which court preceded over both Cooley v. Board of Wardens and Schmerber v. California?
00c1cb1c50e3510c45d30056c5da695d
Cooley v. Board of Wardens Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee. "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states," wrote Justice Curtis for the majority.
aa125c2e9f07a25705d1db763835c702
Schmerber v. California Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body. Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects. Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.
ee8fb43909b6578feb55e0b8eb4aa48e
Earl Warren Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was an American jurist and politician who served as the 30th Governor of California (1943–1953) and later the 14th Chief Justice of the United States (1953–1969).
e1703ee2901326414926057135370261
R v Drybones R v Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, is a landmark 6-3 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the "Canadian Bill of Rights" "empowered the courts to strike down federal legislation which offended its dictates." Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 94(b) of the "Indian Act" (which prohibited "Indians" from being intoxicated off of a reserve) is inoperative because it violates section 1(b) of the "Canadian Bill of Rights".
a14453fd7f6f636fdeb81fecf181ff34
Knight v. Jewett Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296 (1992), was a case decided by the California Supreme Court, ruling that the comparative negligence scheme adopted in "Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California" did not completely eliminate the defense of assumption of risk in an action for negligence.
d80ef4e5a1b8ad0c2064fddd0a4cbeff
R v Schoombie R v Schoombie is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 21 March 1945, with judgment handed down on 15 May, and Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA, Greenberg JA and Davis AJA presiding.
cfa1afaf2a7e13c926afa68e354a8bc1
Subversive Activities Control Board The Subversive Activities Control Board (SACB) was a United States government committee to investigate Communist infiltration of American society during the 1950s Red Scare. It was the subject of a landmark United States Supreme Court decision of the Warren Court, "Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board", 351 U.S. 115 (1956), that would lead to later decisions that rendered the Board powerless.
576588993279bfd8779e772708a396a0
Farrington v. Tokushige Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously struck down the Territory of Hawaii's law, making it illegal for schools to teach foreign languages without a permit, as it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment.
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>
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.
f259df7e04f88eb767c797a621d62b5a
Aikens v. California Aikens v. California, 406 U.S. 813 (1972) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner (in the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff (Aikens) is called the "petitioner" and the defendant (the State of California) is called the "respondent") was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the Supreme Court of California in "People v. Anderson", 6 Cal. 3d 628 (1972), declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution. This made his appeal unnecessary because the decision in "Anderson"
d32aa5f496d01d72ff6eadfff2d42b1a
Mancusi v. DeForte Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 , is a 1968 decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of "habeas corpus" by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals. By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.
4e5db5b79c8f16b0cb0370b44049b08e
Edward C. Lawson Edward C. Lawson was an African American civil rights activist, who was the plaintiff in the case of "Kolender v. Lawson", 461 U.S. 352 (1983) , in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California statute
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.
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.
9c4690ecec27e525a5bcceecb2b23499
Joseph B. Crockett Joseph Bryant Crockett (November 17, 1808 – January 15, 1884) was an American attorney who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from December 1867 to January 5, 1880.
adc104ae6c1517b7a092ddf8ca069caa
Joseph Henry Kibbey Joseph Henry Kibbey (March 4, 1853 – June 14, 1924) was an American attorney who served as Associate Justice of the Arizona Territorial Supreme Court from 1889 to 1893 and Governor of Arizona Territory from 1905 to 1909. His legal career is most remembered for his efforts in the area of water law, his key legal contributions being the "Kibbey Decision", a legal ruling establishing the principle that "water belongs to the land", and creation of the legal framework for the Salt River Valley Water User's Association, a model for federal water projects in the American West. As governor, Kibbey was a leader in the effort to prevent Arizona and New Mexico territories from being combined into a single U.S. state.
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.
27bb14c385ac9cc1f557afb93aea8566
Kathryn Werdegar Kathryn Mickle Werdegar (born April 5, 1936) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California from June 3, 1994, to August 31, 2017.
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.
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.
da3c210a1b271d5e55ca5570cddb1910
Yakus v. United States Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which upheld congressional power to fetter judicial review and to delegate broad and flexible law-making power to an administrative agency in this constitutional challenge to the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942. The wartime anti-inflation measure, intended to expedite price control enforcement, conferred on the federal district courts jurisdiction over violations of Office of Price Administration (OPA) regulations made under the act. But judicial power to consider the constitutionality of such regulations was accepted. Congress specified that challenges to their validity be initially reviewed under stringent time limitations by the OPA and on appeal exclusively by a special Article III tribunal in the District of Columbia—the Emergency Court of Appeals—and thereafter by the Supreme Court.