Jump to content

List of landmark court decisions in the United States: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 595573823 by P3Y229 (talk) Clean up
Line 261: Line 261:
*''[[Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.]]'', '''{{ussc|467|837|1984}}''' A [[government agencies|government agency's]] interpretation of its own mandate from [[United States Congress|Congress]] is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
*''[[Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.]]'', '''{{ussc|467|837|1984}}''' A [[government agencies|government agency's]] interpretation of its own mandate from [[United States Congress|Congress]] is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
*''[[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.]]'', '''{{ussc|464|417|1984}}''' Making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of [[time-shifting]] does not constitute [[copyright infringement]], but is [[fair use]].
*''[[Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.]]'', '''{{ussc|464|417|1984}}''' Making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of [[time-shifting]] does not constitute [[copyright infringement]], but is [[fair use]].
*''[[Selle v. Gibb]]'', '''{{ussc|741|896|1984}}''' the [[Substantial similarity|doctrine of striking similarities]] is not enough in the absence of proof of access. Evidence of access must extend beyond mere speculation.
*''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]'', '''{{ussc|499|340|1991}}''' Originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of [[copyright]] protection.
*''[[Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service]]'', '''{{ussc|499|340|1991}}''' Originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of [[copyright]] protection.
*''[[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals]]'', '''{{ussc|509|579|1993}}''' Expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community ([[Daubert standard]]).
*''[[Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals]]'', '''{{ussc|509|579|1993}}''' Expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community ([[Daubert standard]]).

Revision as of 16:24, 15 February 2014

The following is a partial list of landmark court decisions in the United States. Landmark decisions establish a significant new legal principle or concept or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:

  • distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • establishing a “test” or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.

In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.

Individual rights

Discrimination based on race

Discrimination based on sex

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Birth control and abortion

End of life

Restrictions on involuntary commitment

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights

Other areas

Criminal law

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures

Right to an attorney

Other rights regarding counsel

  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) To obtain relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
  • Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction. Second, where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result. Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation—counsel cannot remain silent about immigration consequences.

Right to remain silent

  • Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) The right to remain silent does not exist unless a suspect invokes it unambiguously.
  • Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before this individual has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by simply standing mute. Instead it must be expressly invoked by the witness.

Competence

Other criminal sentences

  • Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
  • Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.

Federalism

  • United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875) The Free Petition Clause enables persons to petition for everything connected with the powers or duties of the Federal Government. The right to petition is a primary right, while the right of assembly is a secondary right.
  • Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) The Free Petition Clause extends to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) The Free Petition Clause encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive including administrative agencies and the judiciary.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

Legality of targeted firearms prohibition

  • United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Held that a sawed-off shotgun did not constitute a weapon suitable for militia use, and therefore verified the constitutional integrity of the National Firearms Act. Prior to Heller, Miller was the primary ruling covering the individual right to bear arms, and its more conservative interpretation of individual rights (in the context of the militia) was the primary jurisprudential basis for subsequent legislation outlawing specific weapon types.

Other areas

References

  1. ^ Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Retrieved July 15, 2013.