-
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
The Court held that the due process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. -
Gitlow v. New York
The Court concluded that NY could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the criminal Anarchy Law. Supreme Court 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
In a news paper called the Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. The local officials stated that the Saturday Press violated the state "gag law" that provided that any person in the action of publishing obscene newspaper was guilty of a nuisance. The Court had to decide if the gag law violates the 1st Amendment free press. The Court ruled in favor of Near stating government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
The Court held that the Oregon statute, violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court found that Dirk De Jonge had the right to speak at a peaceful public meeting held by the Communist Party. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
The Court held that Cantwell's actions were protected by the 1st and 14th Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Everson filed a lawsuit alleged that his indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey State Constitution and the 1st Amendment. A divide Court held the that law did not violate the Constitution. -
In re Oliver
The Court assumed that a criminal trial conducted in secret would violate the procedural requirements of the 14th Amendment's due process clause, although its actual holding there was that no violation had in fact occurred since the trial court's order barring the general public had not been enforced. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Police committed an illegal search in the home of Dollree Mapp while on the search for a fugitive, in doing so they found obscene materials in Mapp's possession. They used the evidence they illegally obtained to convict Mapp of owning obscene material. The Court had to decide if the materials found in Mapp's house were protected by the 4th Amendment seizure. The Court decided in favor of Dollree Mapp stating that the evidence that the police found was not valid, violated the 4th Amendment. -
Robinson v. California
The Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments. -
Edward v. South Carolina
187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace for peacefully assembling at the South Carlina state government. Police arrested the student after they disobeyed an order to disperse. The Court had to decide if the arrest violated the 1sr Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, and petition. In an 8-1 decision, the Court reversed the criminal convictions of the of the black students. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. -
Ker v. California
Police investigating narcotics came in contact with a deal between the dealer and the defendant husband, but the officers didn't see the actual drugs. With out a warrant the police managed to get and apartment key from the building manager. The Court had to decide if the evidence was admissible. The Court held that the entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies were investigating narcotics, which was an exigent circumstance, and held that the arrest of the Kers were lawful. -
Malloy v. Hogan
William Malloy was arrested during a gambling raid in 1959, when Malloy refused to testify when asked to about or criminal activities, stating it might incriminate him, he was held until willing to answer questions. The Court had to decide if the 14th Amendment protected a states witness's 5th Amendment. The Court held that the 5th Amendment's exception from compulsory self incrimination is protected by the 14th Amendment against abridgment by a state. -
Pointer v. Texas
In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that the 6th Amendment's right of confrontation required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant's right to a speedy trail -
Miranda v. Arizona
5-4 majority, concluding that the defendant's interrogation violated the 5th Amendment. To protect the privilege, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. -
Washington v. Texas
The Supreme Court held that the 6th Amendment right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the 6th Amendment guarantee of trail by jury in criminal case was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice." and that the states were obligated under the 14th Amendment to provide such trails. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny, a jury found him guilty of burglary but wasn't found guilty of larceny. The jury that convicted him were selected unconstitutionally. The new jury found him guilty of both charges. The Court had to decide if Benton's second trial was in violation of the 5th Amendment. The Court overruled Palko holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment as applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the 14th Amendment. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
The Court found that the 6th and 14th Amendment required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
The Court found that the administrative fee before it did not offend Due Process even though it was imposed on both those who were convicted and those who were acquitted -
Rabe v. Washington
The Supreme Court reversed the obscenity conviction of the manager of a drive-in movie theater in Richland, Washington. The drive-in manager argued that a movie with sexual scenes was protected by the 1st Amendment. -
McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit, holding that the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states -
Timbs v. Indiana
The Court found that the Excessive Fines Clause finds its origins in the Magna Carta, the historic English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day.
