-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Compensation is entitled to be paid by the state or company for that person's property. The Supreme Court ruled that the XIV Amendment of due process was violated and that the law shall secure and protect the life and property of their citizens. -
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow argued that since his Manifesto's publication did not incite retaliation that he should not be charged with criminal intent. The Supreme Court decided that he was being denied the right of freedom of the press and that he was wrongfully charged with criminal intent. -
Near v. Minnesota
Near argued that state law cannot permanently ban his newspaper publishings just cause of one publishing which may have been to incite conflict, but the Supreme Court ruled against this decision because It was unlawful to hold someone accountable for just one simple mistake made by the defendant. -
DeJonge v. Oregon:
DeJonge was charged with criminal syndicalism, for taking part in a meeting in Portland known as, the Portland branch of the Communist party. His reasoning was that he should not be convicted under false charges of sabotage and Criminal syndicalism. The Supreme Court ruled that DeJonge's rights were being violated and that a peaceful political assembly was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut:
Cantwell and his two sons were charged and arrested for selling religious goods door-to-door without obtaining prior certification. The Supreme Court's decision was that the defendant was charged without due process and that the Secretary of Public Welfare's decision went against the First and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Everson filed a lawsuit against the state of New Jersey that their law of reimbursement for funding transportation for schools was going against not only New Jersey State Law, but also that it went against the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutor was wrong in this matter and that the reimbursement money given to religious schools wasn't given to just one type of religious school, but to every religious school and the U.S... -
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp had been charged with illegal material in her home and that the evidence presented in court was seized and taken without a warrant during an illegal search of her home, therefore the defendant pleaded that her Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments were being violated. The Supreme Court ruled that Mapp was in the right and that her rights to unlawful and criminalized searches were within her rights and that the evidence presented in court was to be removed from the case and was found not guilty. -
Robinson v. California
Robison was charged with the use of narcotics and that he himself had used them in the state of California. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was being convicted under false charges and that he had suffered cruel and unusual punishment while in custody and that his Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments were being violated in this matter and that he was found not guilty. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
Two groups of black students assembled to protest peacefully outside South Carolina statehouse grounds to give them and let them know of their grievances. The Supreme Court ruled that they themselves couldn't exactly define the situation at hand that the protestors were just doing something against the majority of views of their citizens. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon was excused of robbing a store of its money and stealing goods. He was wrongfully tried without an attorney, which the state denied him since the state ruled that it was not a federal case. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant must be given an attorney so that the defendant can have a fair and civil trial. -
Ker v. California
Ker was supposedly dealing with a marijuana dealer when the police found out they went to his household unlocked the door with a key and then proceeded to arrest Ker and his wife for possession of marijuana after forcefully searching their home without a warrant or pass. The Supreme Court ruled that the officers were in there right to search there home, for the reasons that the officer had prior knowledge of the contraband and that they were acting quickly so that the evidence wouldn't be dumped -
Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid and was sentenced to jail and had to pay a $500 fee for a misdemeanor. His sentence was later suspended after 90 days and was on a two-year probation. He filed a lawsuit claiming habeas corpus due to being sent back to jail for being afraid to incriminate himself. The Supreme Court ruled that he was well within his 5th amendment right to object before self-incrimination and therefore upholding the fourteenth amendment. -
Pointer v. Texas
Pointer was charged with armed robbery, but the thing was, was that he lived in California and not in Texas and requested to be tried in California and his right was denied. The Supreme Court ruled that this was against the Sixth and Fourteenth amendment. -
Miranda v. Arizona
The defendant was arrest by the police and was interrogated without due process and soon after requested to review the case. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's 5th amendment right was violated which convicted the defendant to self-incrimination. -
Washington v. Texas
Washington was convicted for shooting someone when it was his partner Fuller and when he demanded that Fuller be testified to say that he didn't do it. The court denied his testimony and refused the witness because they cannot charge them both for the same crime.
The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant was being denied his 14th amendment right of due process. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
North Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan was charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of two years imprisonment and a $ 300 fine. The court ruled that the defendant was entitled to a jury trial and the trial court erred in denying it. by the Sixth Amendment was also guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to defendants tried in state courts. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny but guilty of burglary. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. The court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
the Court found that a defendant's bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant's presence at the trial. The Court dismissed Schilb's complaint, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. -
Rabe v. Washington
the petitioner had been convicted of violating a Washington obscenity statute that, by its terms, did not proscribe the defendant's conduct. The Court overturned the conviction because the Washington Supreme Court's broadening of the statute was unexpected; therefore the petitioner had no warning that his actions were proscribed. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Jon Richard Argersinger was sentenced under Florida law to 90 days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon but was never represented by counsel. Hamlin was the local sheriff. The Court held that a criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel. -
In re Oliver
acting on reports that marihuana was being raised on petitioner Ray E. Oliver's farm, narcotics agents of the Kentucky State Police went to the farm to investigate. The Court held that the open fields doctrine applied in both cases and, as such, the discovery or seizure of the marihuana in question was valid. Because the Court found that there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation of privacy in open fields. -
McDonald v. Chicago
Petitioners filed suits against respondent municipalities for effectively banning possession of handguns by private citizens. The Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and that the Second Amendment was fully applicable to the states. Self-defense was a basic right and was the central component of the Second Amendment right, and the Court had recognized that the Second Amendment right applied to handguns. -
Timbs v. Indiana
Defendant Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft. At the time of Timbs' arrest, the police seized a Land Rover SUV that Timbs had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from an insurance policy when his father died. The Court reasoned that protection against excessive punitive economic sanctions secured by the Excessive Fines Clause is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty.
