What do Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health and Bolling v. Sharpe have in common?
6aaa5497cd55f40967970c3d1ee49de1
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, "Cruzan" was argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.
32b1af5e9f134191156f8f079091823e
Bolling v. Sharpe Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown." The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed." "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive.
fccb777d8abc7cb0313c626b241566d2
Ludwig v. Massachusetts Ludwig v. Massachusetts, 427 U.S. 600 (1976) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Massachusetts two-tier court system did not deprive Ludwig of his U.S. Const., Amend. XIV right to a jury trial and did not violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Const., Amend. V.
221ca8787bddc2de673d3318696fa885
Ligenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co. Ligenfelder v. Wainwright Brewing Co., 15 S.W. 844 (1891), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Missouri that held that forgoing a suit for damages for lack of performance on a contract does not constitute consideration for a modification of that contract.
b5e07f8450a242df22aed3fdecb05128
Luis v. United States Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
dbb51489676976a16710e36d033337b1
Beard v. United States Beard v. United States, 158 U.S. 550 (1895), is a United States Supreme Court case in which self-defense in a homicide case was found not to require a duty to retreat.
38286671c274c7c32e6f95418a220db4
Kansas v. Carr Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.
729edf5b5855c8311825a945b8dd20cf
Andrew Jackson Higgins (Missouri) Andrew Jackson Higgins was a judge on the Supreme Court of Missouri between 1979 and 1991, and its Chief Justice from 1985 to 1987. Previously, he had served as a commissioner for the Supreme Court between 1964 and 1979, and as Circuit Court Judge for Platte County from 1960 to 1964.
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.
52ea5af426228cb71dcdf16990693b2b
Frank v. Maryland Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959) , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
6062c81696bfba4358057a1f28563c39
Zel Fischer Zel M. Fischer (born April 28, 1963) is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri. A native of Watson, he received his undergraduate degree from William Jewell College and his law degree from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. While at William Jewell College he was a member of the Alpha Delta Chapter of Kappa Alpha Order. He was elected as a Republican to serve as Atchison County Judge in 2006 after private practice in Atchison, Nodaway and Holt counties for nearly 15 years.
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.
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.
37c4ca8d374028a66ae67e01cbf837f9
F. Lee Bailey Francis Lee Bailey, Jr., (born June 10, 1933) is an American former attorney. For most of his career, he was licensed in Massachusetts and Florida, where he was disbarred in 2001. He was a criminal defense attorney who served as the lawyer in the re-trial of osteopathic physician Sam Sheppard. He was also the supervisory attorney over attorney Mark J. Kadish in the court martial of Captain Ernest Medina for the My Lai Massacre, among other high-profile trials, and was one of the lawyers for the defense in the O. J. Simpson murder case. He has also had a number of visible defeats, legal controversies, and personal trouble with the law, and was disbarred in Massachusetts and Florida for misconduct while defending his client Claude DuBoc. In 2014, he was denied a law license by the Maine State Bar Association and the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.
d764344b090561766b5e21f96fa704af
Feres v. United States Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.
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.
a87b6dfa69f5e3e5e2eb0eea0cfd97ab
Brenner v. Scott In Brenner v. Scott and its companion case, Grimsley v. Scott, a U.S. district court found Florida's constitutional and statutory same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. On August 21, 2014, the court issued a preliminary injunction that prevents that state from enforcing its bans and then stayed its injunction until stays are lifted in the three same-sex marriage cases then petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court–"Bostic", "Bishop", and "Kitchen"–and for 91 days thereafter. When the district court's preliminary injunction took effect on January 6, 2015, enforcement of Florida's bans on same-sex marriage ended.
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.
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.
a88c77113c3a869812bd58b2a159e772
Sorrells v. United States Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.
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.
0c3179fe4c4819f98bbbca28007a8c6e
Marcus v. Search Warrant Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) , full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an "in rem" case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.