Process of Incorporation

  • Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
    The City of Chicago wanted to connect two disjoint sections of Rockwell Street between 18th and 19th Streets, over private property. This property included a right-of-way owned by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Corporation. The land was condemned and compensation was awarded to the different individuals. the railroad was one dollar. The railroad appealed the judgment. The railroad argued that one dollar in compensation went against due process and the court affirmed their judgment
  • Period: to

    Process of Incorporation

  • Gitlow v. New York

    Gitlow v. New York
    Held that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states
  • Near v. Minnesota

    Near v. Minnesota
    A court case that ruled prior restraint on publication was found to violate the freedom of the press. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence.
  • DeJonge v. Oregon

    DeJonge v. Oregon
    Held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party, even though the party generally advocated an industrial or political change in revolution.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut

    Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Held that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious freedom under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state governments too.
  • Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

    Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
    a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. Before this decision, the First Amendment's words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, and not the state governments
  • In re Oliver

    In re Oliver
    A court case involving the application of the right of due process in the state courts. In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    In this case, the court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to both the U.S. federal government and to the U.S. states.
  • Robinson v. California

    Robinson v. California
    The first court case where the Eighth Amendment was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct. It was originally interpreted with the act of prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime
  • Ker v. California

    Ker v. California
    Incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure.
  • Edwards v. South Carolina

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    The court ruled that the First and Fourteenth Amendments forbid state government officials from forcing a crowd to disperse when they are legally marching in front of a statehouse.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    A Court case where the Court unanimously held that in a criminal case states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.
  • Malloy v. Hogan

    Malloy v. Hogan
    A court case which deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege to not witnesses against themselves was applicable in both federal and state courts
  • Pointer v. Texas

    Pointer v. Texas
    A court case involving the application of the right to confront accusers in state court proceedings. A person was arrested in Texas for robbery and was deprived of the ability to cross-examine a witness
  • Miranda v. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona
    A court case that ruled an American law enforcement officer cannot interrogate suspects without first informing them of their rights. The rights given from this case are called the Miranda Rights
  • Washington v. Texas

    Washington v. Texas
    The Court ruled that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable to both state and federal courts
  • Klopfer v. North Carolina

    Klopfer v. North Carolina
    A court case that incorporated the speedy trial clause to the state courts
  • Duncan v. Louisiana

    Duncan v. Louisiana
    A court case which applied the sixth amendment to the state courts
  • Benton v. Maryland

    Benton v. Maryland
    A court decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states.
  • Schilb v. Kuebel

    Schilb v. Kuebel
    The court held that no due process denial results from retention of the 1% charge, which is an administrative fee, and that the Illinois bail system does not violate equal protection requirements
  • Argersinger v. Hamlin

    Argersinger v. Hamlin
    The Court held that an accused person cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless they are provided with counsel
  • Rabe v. Washington

    Rabe v. Washington
    A court case where William Rabe a manager of a drive-in was arrested for showing obscene images at the theatre. Instead of saying the whole film was obscene, they argued that the act of showing it at the drive-in was obscene
  • McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago
    A court case which ruled that the right to bear arms was protected against the states under the fourteenth amendment
  • Timbs v. Indiana

    Timbs v. Indiana
    A court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture. The Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines is incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.