Did both Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Missouri v. Holland take place in the U.S.?
12ebbb93af262e5b78195b77d142d195
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to "closely held" corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
0dbc8d9646b790e02d3b95a3736ee731
Missouri v. Holland In Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that protection of a State's quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a State to enjoin enforcement of an unconstitutional federal regulation, but that the federal government's implementation of the treaty at issue was constitutional, trumping state concerns about enumerated powers or abrogation of states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment. The case revolved around the constitutionality of implementing the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. It is also notable for Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' reference to the idea of a living constitution.
b41496dfb7e844e4e03f809a69def505
United States v. Harriss United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 (1954), was a U.S. Supreme Court case applied directly to the Regulation of Lobbying Act.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
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.
567bdcd0f7db100ade640678c349d653
Stoner v. California Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) , is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the Fourth Amendment. It was a criminal case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. The case extended the situations under which search warrants are required as they reversed a robbery conviction made on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the holding.
635e0aa2ffc12c5a03b0570552220b95
Barrett v. United States Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218 (1898), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that South Carolina had never effectively been subdivided into separate judicial districts. Therefore, it was held, a criminal defendant allegedly tried in one district for a crime committed in the other had in fact been permissibly been tried in a separate division of a single district.
527da3cd211a174139fcd66a59375750
United States v. Loew's Inc. United States v. Loew's Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962), was an antitrust case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that block booking of movies—the offer of only a combined assortment of movies to an exhibitor—violates the Sherman Antitrust Act.
f5b5dcf3bbffe233e155299b015c67bb
Illinois v. Rodriguez Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of whether a warrantless search conducted pursuant to third party consent violates the Fourth Amendment when the third party does not actually possess common authority over the premises.
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.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
60d4fb9a0b756323d0fe984b37abf913
Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which it was decided that cities could regulate billboards and that municipal governments could not treat commercial outdoor advertising more harshly than noncommercial messages.
5b2bcf8507b6c3e25e5fda87fb282878
Kidd v. Pearson Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
726949d807fdf2a21d34d838a9ed1523
United States v. Freed United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act's restrictions against a person's "receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him," did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal liability, despite a lack of a requirement that the defendant have had a "specific intent or knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered."
4f158ff50cf8e05cbfa7a8bb46031b95
Byram v. United States Byram v. United States, 705 F.2d 1418 (5th Cir. 1983) is a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that helps determine when a sale of land will result in a capital gain for purpose of the U.S. Federal income tax.
b84c14897e4c060ad41e56b35377e0a1
Brown v. Texas Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that the defendant's arrest in El Paso, Texas, for a refusal to identify himself, after being seen and questioned in a high crime area, was not based on a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. It is an important case for Stop and Identify statutes in the United States.
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.
018093b2aa165904c4ece104ef20132c
Burwell, Nebraska Burwell is a city in Garfield County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 1,210 at the 2010 census. It is the county seat of Garfield County.
a6f96ae8e281091179d2c971f74f5acc
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut American Booksellers v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985), aff'd mem., 475 U.S. 1001 (1986), was a 1985 court case that challenged the constitutionality of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance, as enacted in Indianapolis, Indiana.
3187c3072363e4ba60b40261ac6df2bd
Daimler AG v. Bauman Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court answered whether an American court may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the jurisdictional state. The court held that an American company cannot be sued for conduct occurring outside the United States and American courts do not have jurisdiction of such a claim.<ref name="http://www.forbes.com"> </ref>
02533687f9fa23eddc946842e3b471d3
James Buchanan Holland James Buchanan Holland (November 14, 1857 – April 24, 1914) was a United States federal judge.
12382da34f89d237f6f2b6ece2aa74b9
Baker v. Carr Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts.