Jump to content

Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Daniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
Hylton v. United States
Argued February 23, 1796
Decided March 8, 1796
Full case nameDaniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
Citations3 U.S. 171 (more)
3 Dall. 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155
Related casesRelated text???
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
SubsequentNone
Holding
A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinions
SeriatimChase
SeriatimPaterson
SeriatimIredell
SeriatimWilson
Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
Hylton v. United States
Argued February 23, 1796
Decided March 8, 1796
Full case nameDaniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
Citations3 U.S. 171 (more)
3 Dall. 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155
Related casesRelated text???
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
SubsequentNone
Holding
A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinions
SeriatimChase
SeriatimPaterson
SeriatimIredell
SeriatimWilson
Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases
Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case nameWilliam Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Citations5 U.S. 137 (more)
1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Case history
PriorOriginal action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington[a]
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13
Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases
Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case nameWilliam Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Citations5 U.S. 137 (more)
1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Case history
PriorOriginal action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the judiciary to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington[a]
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13
E. Allgeyer & Co. v. Louisiana
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Argued January 6, 1897
Decided March 1, 1897
Full case nameE. Allgeyer & Co. v. Louisiana
Citations165 U.S. 578 (more)
17 S. Ct. 427; 41 L. Ed. 832; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1998
Case history
PriorTrial court held for defendant, Allgeyer. Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. 48 La. Ann. 104.
Holding
  1. States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
  2. States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham
Case opinion
MajorityPeckham, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Allgeyer v. Louisiana
Argued January 6, 1897
Decided March 1, 1897
Full case nameE. Allgeyer & Co. v. Louisiana
Citations165 U.S. 578 (more)
17 S. Ct. 427; 41 L. Ed. 832; 1897 U.S. LEXIS 1998
Case history
PriorTrial court held for defendant, Allgeyer. Louisiana Supreme Court reversed. 48 La. Ann. 104.
Holding
  1. States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state for acts performed outside the state.
  2. States may not prohibit citizens from contracting insurance out of state by written communication, even if the property to be insured is within the state.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown · George Shiras Jr.
Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham
Case opinion
MajorityPeckham, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Charles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
Schenck v. United States
Argued January 8–10, 1919
Decided March 3, 1919
Full case nameCharles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
Citations249 U.S. 47 (more)
63 L. Ed. 470; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
Case history
PriorDefendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212 (E.D. Pa. 1918)
SubsequentNone
Holding
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinion
MajorityHolmes, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; 50 U.S.C. § 33
Overruled by
Schenck v. United States
Argued January 8–10, 1919
Decided March 3, 1919
Full case nameCharles T. Schenck v. United States, Elizabeth Baer v. United States
Citations249 U.S. 47 (more)
63 L. Ed. 470; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 2223; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 26; 17 Ohio L. Rep. 149
Case history
PriorDefendants convicted, E.D. Pa.; motion for new trial denied, 253 F. 212 (E.D. Pa. 1918)
SubsequentNone
Holding
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Edward D. White
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Case opinion
MajorityHolmes, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; 50 U.S.C. § 33
Overruled by
United States v. Behrman
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
United States v. Behrman
Argued March 7, 1922
Decided March 27, 1922
Full case nameUnited States v. Behrman
Citations258 U.S. 280 (more)
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
United States v. Behrman
Argued March 7, 1922
Decided March 27, 1922
Full case nameUnited States v. Behrman
Citations258 U.S. 280 (more)
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
William R. Day · Willis Van Devanter
Mahlon Pitney · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis · John H. Clarke
Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company
Side by side comparison
{{Infobox US Supreme Court case}}{{Infobox US Supreme Court case/sandbox}}
Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company
Argued May 1–2, 1941
Decided June 2, 1941
Full case nameKlaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Citations313 U.S. 487 (more)
61 S. Ct. 1020; 85 L. Ed. 1477; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1298; 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Harlan F. Stone · Owen Roberts
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy
Case opinion
MajorityReed, joined by unanimous
Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company
Argued May 1–2, 1941
Decided June 2, 1941
Full case nameKlaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Citations313 U.S. 487 (more)
61 S. Ct. 1020; 85 L. Ed. 1477; 1941 U.S. LEXIS 1298; 49 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 515
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Harlan F. Stone · Owen Roberts
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy
Case opinion
MajorityReed, joined by unanimous
Sandbox code Current code
Brown v. Board of Education
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
Full case nameOliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
Citations347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)
SubsequentJudgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999)
Holding
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
Berea College v. Kentucky (1908)
Brown v. Board of Education
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
Full case nameOliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
Citations347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)
SubsequentJudgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999)
Holding
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education (1899)
Berea College v. Kentucky (1908)
Sandbox code Current code
North Carolina v. Pearce
Argued February 24, 1969
Decided June 23, 1969
Full case nameState of North Carolina et al. v. Clifton A. Pearce v. William S. Rice
Citations395 U.S. 711 (more)
89 S. Ct. 2072; 23 L. Ed. 2d 656
Case history
PriorIn the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258. In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
Subsequentlimited by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989)
Holding
Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Brennan and Warren
ConcurrenceDoulas, joined by Marshall
ConcurrenceWhite
Concur/dissentBlack
Concur/dissentHarlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; U.S. Const. amend. V
North Carolina v. Pearce
Argued February 24, 1969
Decided June 23, 1969
Full case nameState of North Carolina et al. v. Clifton A. Pearce v. William S. Rice
Citations395 U.S. 711 (more)
89 S. Ct. 2072; 23 L. Ed. 2d 656
Case history
PriorIn the first case, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, 274 F.Supp. 116, granted writ and the warden appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 396 F.2d 499, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 922, 89 S.Ct. 258, 21 L.Ed.2d 258. In the second case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh, ordered the prisoner's release and appeal was taken. The United States Court of Appeals, 397 F.2d 253, affirmed and certiorari was granted. 393 U.S. 932, 89 S.Ct. 292, 21 L.Ed.2d 268.
Subsequentlimited by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794, 109 S. Ct. 2201, 104 L. Ed. 2d 865 (1989)
Holding
Trial court denied respondents' due process right by imposing a heavier sentence to punish respondent for having his original conviction set aside.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Brennan and Warren
ConcurrenceDoulas, joined by Marshall
ConcurrenceWhite
Concur/dissentBlack
Concur/dissentHarlan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; U.S. Const. amend. V
Sandbox code Current code
Ashe v. Swenson
Argued November 13, 1969
Decided April 6, 1970
Full case nameBob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
Citations397 U.S. 436 (more)
90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 L. Ed. 2d 469; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 54
Holding
Retrying an acquitted defendant for the same offense by citing a different victim is an unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
PluralityStewart, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall
ConcurrenceBlack
ConcurrenceHarlan
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall
DissentBurger
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958)
Ashe v. Swenson
Argued November 13, 1969
Decided April 6, 1970
Full case nameBob Fred Ashe, Petitioner v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
Citations397 U.S. 436 (more)
90 S. Ct. 1189; 25 L. Ed. 2d 469; 1970 U.S. LEXIS 54
Holding
Retrying an acquitted defendant for the same offense by citing a different victim is an unconstitutional double jeopardy.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
PluralityStewart, joined by Douglas, White, Marshall
ConcurrenceBlack
ConcurrenceHarlan
ConcurrenceBrennan, joined by Douglas, Marshall
DissentBurger
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Hoag v. New Jersey, 356 U.S. 464 (1958)
Sandbox code Current code
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket no.08-205
Citations558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S. Ct. 876; 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
Holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990. McConnell v. FEC, 2003 (in part).
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket no.08-205
Citations558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S. Ct. 876; 175 L. Ed. 2d 753; 2010 U.S. LEXIS 766
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorMotion for preliminary injunction denied, 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008); probable jurisdiction noted, 555 U.S. 1028 (2008).
Holding
The provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act restricting unions, corporations, and profitable organizations from independent political spending and prohibiting the broadcasting of political media funded by them within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violate the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 1990. McConnell v. FEC, 2003 (in part).
Sandbox code Current code
Crawford v. Washington
Argued November 10, 2003
Decided March 8, 2004
Full case nameMichael D. Crawford v. Washington
Citations541 U.S. 36 (more)
124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
SubsequentNone
Holding
The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
Crawford v. Washington
Argued November 10, 2003
Decided March 8, 2004
Full case nameMichael D. Crawford v. Washington
Citations541 U.S. 36 (more)
124 S. Ct. 1354; 158 L. Ed. 2d 177; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 1838; 72 U.S.L.W. 4229; 63 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1077; 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 181
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Thurston County Superior Court, 11-19-99; reversed, 107 Wn. App. 1025 (2001); reversed, conviction reinstated, 54 P.3d 656 (Wash. 2002); certiorari granted, 539 U.S. 914 (2003)
SubsequentNone
Holding
The use at trial of out of court statements made to police by an unavailable witness violated a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Ohio v. Roberts (1980)
Sandbox code Current code
Sykes v. United States
Argued January 12, 2011
Decided June 9, 2011
Full case nameSykes v. United States
Docket no.09-11311
Citations564 U.S. 1 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorSentence enhancement affirmed, 598 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
Holding
Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentScalia
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg
Overruled by
Johnson v. United States (2015)
Sykes v. United States
Argued January 12, 2011
Decided June 9, 2011
Full case nameSykes v. United States
Docket no.09-11311
Citations564 U.S. 1 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorSentence enhancement affirmed, 598 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 2010); certiorari granted, 561 U. S. ___ (2010)
Holding
Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentScalia
DissentKagan, joined by Ginsburg
Overruled by
Johnson v. United States (2015)
Sandbox code Current code
Fisher v. University of Texas
Argued October 10, 2012
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case nameAbigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
Docket no.11-345
Citations570 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
SubsequentSee Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceScalia
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGinsburg
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Grutter v. Bollinger
Fisher v. University of Texas
Argued October 10, 2012
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case nameAbigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
Docket no.11-345
Citations570 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
SubsequentSee Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceScalia
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGinsburg
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Grutter v. Bollinger
Sandbox code Current code
Bailey v. United States
Argued October 30, 1995
Decided December 6, 1995
Full case nameRonald J. Bailey v. United States of America; Candisha Summerita Robinson v. United States of America
Citations516 U.S. 137 (more)
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Holding
"Use" of a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence requires active employment of the firearm and not mere possession.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Act of Nov. 3, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-386, 112 Stat. 3469
(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c))
Bailey v. United States
Argued October 30, 1995
Decided December 6, 1995
Full case nameRonald J. Bailey v. United States of America; Candisha Summerita Robinson v. United States of America
Citations516 U.S. 137 (more)
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Holding
"Use" of a firearm during or in relation to a drug crime or a crime of violence requires active employment of the firearm and not mere possession.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinion
MajorityO'Connor, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
Act of Nov. 3, 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-386, 112 Stat. 3469
(codified at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c))
Sandbox code Current code
Wilson v. Sellers
Argued October 30, 2017
Decided April 17, 2018
Full case nameMarion Wilson v. Eric Sellers, Warden
Citations584 U.S. ___ (more)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito
Wilson v. Sellers
Argued October 30, 2017
Decided April 17, 2018
Full case nameMarion Wilson v. Eric Sellers, Warden
Citations584 U.S. ___ (more)
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
DissentGorsuch, joined by Thomas, Alito
Sandbox code Current code
Glass v. The Sloop Betsey
Argued February 8, 10–12, 1794
Decided February 18, 1794
Full case nameAlexander S. Glass, et al., Appellants v. The Sloop Betsey, et al.
Citations3 U.S. 6 (more)
3 Dall. 6; 1 L. Ed. 485; 1794 U.S. LEXIS 103
Holding
U.S. Courts have the exclusive right to hear admiralty cases in the U.S.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
John Blair Jr. · James Iredell
William Paterson
Case opinion
MajorityJay, joined by unanimous
Glass v. The Sloop Betsey
Argued February 8, 10–12, 1794
Decided February 18, 1794
Full case nameAlexander S. Glass, et al., Appellants v. The Sloop Betsey, et al.
Citations3 U.S. 6 (more)
3 Dall. 6; 1 L. Ed. 485; 1794 U.S. LEXIS 103
Holding
U.S. Courts have the exclusive right to hear admiralty cases in the U.S.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Jay
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
John Blair Jr. · James Iredell
William Paterson
Case opinion
MajorityJay, joined by unanimous
Sandbox code Current code
United States v. Bormes
Argued October 2, 2012
Decided November 13, 2012
Full case nameUnited States v. James X. Bormes
Docket no.11-192
Citations568 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, 638 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Ill. 2009); vacated, 626 F. 3d 574, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Holding
The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityScalia, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (Little Tucker Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Fair Credit Reporting Act)
United States v. Bormes
Argued October 2, 2012
Decided November 13, 2012
Full case nameUnited States v. James X. Bormes
Docket no.11-192
Citations568 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorMotion to dismiss granted, 638 F. Supp. 2d 958 (N.D. Ill. 2009); vacated, 626 F. 3d 574, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 565 U.S. ___ (2012)
Holding
The Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Federal Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
MajorityScalia, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2) (Little Tucker Act); 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Fair Credit Reporting Act)
Sandbox code Current code
Smith v. Bolles
Argued October 31, 1889
Decided November 11, 1889
Full case nameSmith v. Bolles
Citations132 U.S. 125 (more)
132 U.S. 125
Case history
SubsequentError to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
Holding
Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford
Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityFuller
Smith v. Bolles
Argued October 31, 1889
Decided November 11, 1889
Full case nameSmith v. Bolles
Citations132 U.S. 125 (more)
132 U.S. 125
Case history
SubsequentError to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio
Holding
Defendant is bound to make good the loss sustained, such as the moneys the plaintiff had paid out and interest, and any other outlay legitimately attributable to defendant's fraudulent conduct; but this liability did not include the expected fruits of an unrealized speculation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray · Samuel Blatchford
Lucius Q. C. Lamar II
Case opinion
MajorityFuller
Sandbox code Current code
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Argued March 29, 1993
Decided June 21, 1993
Full case nameBrooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Citations509 U.S. 209 (more)
509 U.S. 209, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168
Holding
Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
DissentStevens, joined by White, Blackmun
Laws applied
Clayton Act §2
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Argued March 29, 1993
Decided June 21, 1993
Full case nameBrooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
Citations509 U.S. 209 (more)
509 U.S. 209, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168
Holding
Brown & Williamson is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not engage in predatory pricing in violation of §2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas
DissentStevens, joined by White, Blackmun
Laws applied
Clayton Act §2
Sandbox code Current code
Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
Argued February 25–26, 1959
Decided April 6, 1959
Full case nameKlor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
Citations359 U.S. 207 (more)
Holding
A retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer is a per se illegal boycott.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
Argued February 25–26, 1959
Decided April 6, 1959
Full case nameKlor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.
Citations359 U.S. 207 (more)
Holding
A retail chain's persuasion of a number of suppliers not to deal with a competitive retailer is a per se illegal boycott.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Tom C. Clark
John M. Harlan II · William J. Brennan Jr.
Charles E. Whittaker · Potter Stewart
Sandbox code Current code
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
Argued October 31, 2016
Decided March 22, 2017
Full case nameStar Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al.
Docket no.15–866
Citations580 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorOn Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Holding
Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceGinsburg
DissentBreyer, joined by Kennedy
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 101)
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc.
Argued October 31, 2016
Decided March 22, 2017
Full case nameStar Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., et al.
Docket no.15–866
Citations580 U.S. ___ (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorOn Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Holding
Aesthetic design elements on useful articles like clothing are copyrightable if they can be separately identified as art and exist independently of the useful article.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceGinsburg
DissentBreyer, joined by Kennedy
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. § 101)
Sandbox code Current code
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation
Argued 1 November, 2006
Decided 2 April, 2007
Full case nameInfobox US Supreme Court case/testcases
Docket no.05-848
Citations549 U.S. 561 (more)
127 S. Ct. 1423; 167 L. Ed. 2d 295; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3784; 75 U.S.L.W. 4167; 63 ERC (BNA) 2088; 37 ELR 20076; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The interpretation of a "modification" in the Clean Air Act, in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajoritySouter, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Thomas (all but part III-A)
ConcurrenceThomas
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation
Argued 1 November, 2006
Decided 2 April, 2007
Full case nameInfobox US Supreme Court case/testcases
Docket no.05-848
Citations549 U.S. 561 (more)
127 S. Ct. 1423; 167 L. Ed. 2d 295; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 3784; 75 U.S.L.W. 4167; 63 ERC (BNA) 2088; 37 ELR 20076; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 123
DecisionOpinion
Case history
PriorOn writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Holding
The interpretation of a "modification" in the Clean Air Act, in regards to Prevention of Significant Deterioration and New Source Performance Standard, does not require the same regulatory implementation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
MajoritySouter, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito; Thomas (all but part III-A)
ConcurrenceThomas
Sandbox code Current code
Goldwater v. Carter
Decided December 13, 1979
Full case nameBarry Goldwater, et al. v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States, et al.
Citations444 U.S. 996 (more)
100 S. Ct. 533; 62 L. Ed. 2d 428; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 4144
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 481 F. Supp. 949 (D.D.C. 1979); reversed, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Holding
Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
ConcurrenceMarshall
ConcurrencePowell
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Stevens
DissentBlackmun (in part), joined by White
DissentBrennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II
Goldwater v. Carter
Decided December 13, 1979
Full case nameBarry Goldwater, et al. v. James Earl Carter, President of the United States, et al.
Citations444 U.S. 996 (more)
100 S. Ct. 533; 62 L. Ed. 2d 428; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 4144
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 481 F. Supp. 949 (D.D.C. 1979); reversed, 617 F.2d 697 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Holding
Whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with Taiwan without Senate approval was a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
s
ConcurrenceMarshall
ConcurrencePowell
ConcurrenceRehnquist, joined by Burger, Stewart, Stevens
DissentBlackmun (in part), joined by White
DissentBrennan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II
Sandbox code Current code
Thompson v. Hebdon
Decided November 25, 2019
Full case nameDavid Thompson, et al., v. Heather Hebdon, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, et al.
Docket no.19–122
Citations589 U.S. ___ (more)
140 S. Ct. 348; 205 L. Ed. 2d 245
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, sub nom. Thompson v. Dauphinais, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (D. Alaska 2016); aff'd, 909 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2018.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
Per curiam
StatementGinsburg
Thompson v. Hebdon
Decided November 25, 2019
Full case nameDavid Thompson, et al., v. Heather Hebdon, Executive Director of the Alaska Public Offices Commission, et al.
Docket no.19–122
Citations589 U.S. ___ (more)
140 S. Ct. 348; 205 L. Ed. 2d 245
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, sub nom. Thompson v. Dauphinais, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1023 (D. Alaska 2016); aff'd, 909 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2018.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinion
Per curiam
StatementGinsburg

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Due to illnesses, Justices William Cushing and Alfred Moore did not sit for oral argument or participate in the Court's decision.