-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
After an area of land was condemned, and the railroad was not given compensation, they sued. The supreme court ruled that it did not violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. -
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow was arrested after advocating for a group that entailed overthrowing the government. He argued he was protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that although he had freedom of speech, he cannot advocate for what would overthrow the entire government. -
Near v. Minnesota
After a newspaper posted what the police station viewed as "malicious" or "slandering" they tried to press charges. After the lower courts agreed with the police, the Supreme Court did not. They said that it was unconstitutional for them to limit their first amendment rights. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
After DeJonge was arrested after a police raid during a meeting, he appealed his conviction saying it was against his first amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed with him saying it was his right of Freedom of Assembly and he technically did not commit any crimes. -
Cantwell v. Conneticut
After a few Jehovah's witnesses were soliciting on the street, a few Cathglouc became upset. This reached the Supreme Court where it was decided that it was protected by the 1st Amendment that they were religiously soliciting. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
After a law was passed that tax-paying dollars would profit school buses to both public and private schools, Emerson sued to say it violated the first amendment. The court disagreed saying this benefitted all students not just those in private schools. -
Mapp v. Ohio
After a woman's home was searched unlawfully and was convicted due to obscene materials. She appealed and said it violated her first amendment rights. The supreme court ignored this and ruled that it was illegal to admit evidence in a court of law without it being obtained lawfully under the 4th amendment. -
Robinson v. California
After someone with a narcotic addiction was found guilty, the supreme court ruled that this violated the 8th Amendment. They decided this because addiction was considered an illness and punishing someone for it was cruel and unusual punishment. -
Ker v. California
Argued whether it was unconstitutional fro Ker to be convicted in a court of law if the evidence was obtained using unlawful search and seizure. The court ruled that this evidence and conviction violated his 4th Amendment rights. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
After a man was refused an attorney and then sentenced to five years in prison. He appealed to the supreme court stating they violated his 6th Amendment rights. The supreme court agreed. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
After hundreds of black students were arrested for peaceful protest in the state of South Carolina, the students appealed to argue this went against their First and fourteenth amendments. The court ruled that, yes, this violated their 1st amendment. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Argued whether the 14th Amendment protects the witness's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. After Malloy was charged and convicted he did his time but was required to testify which could potentially self-incriminate himself. The court agreed that he was protected by the 5th Amendent. -
Pointer v. Texas
After Pointer was charged with burglary of a 7-11 store, he was not given an attorney or the right the cross-examine his opponent. The court ruled this was a violation of his 6th Amendment rights. -
Washington v. Texas
After two men were charged with the same crime, it was denied for one to testify in favor of making the other non-guilty. The court decided this was a violation of the 6th Amendment that said people were allowed to obtain witnesses for their own defense. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
After lower courts could not reach a verdict, a judge suspended Klopfer's case indefinitely. Klopfer appealed saying it violated his right to a speedy trial in the 6th Amendment, which the courts agreed with. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Argued whether a black male who was charged with assault was guaranteed a jury trial by the 6th Amendment. The court agreed with Duncan stating the defendant was guaranteed the right to a jury trial in all criminal cases. -
Benton v. Maryland
After a man was indicted twice for the same crime, both with different outcomes, he appealed saying that he was a victim of double jeopardy which violated the 5th amendment. The Supreme Court agreed and sided with him over Maryland. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Argued whether or not the Illinois Bail statute was unconstitutional under the 6th Amendment. The courts ruled that, no, it was very constitutional. After a man left the scene of a car accident and was charged with violating traffic, he paid enough of his bail. However, all of his bail was not returned back to him as a small portion was taken as a bail bond cost. -
Agersinger v. Hamlin
This case argued whether the accused could be charged without the presence of a jury under the 6th Amendment. It resulted from a man being accused and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon in the state of Florida without counsel. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused must be represented with counsel under the 6th ammendment. -
Rabe v. Washington
Argued whether those subject to anti-obscenity laws shall be informed of these laws' restrictions beforehand. The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, they must be informed beforehand after a move drive-in owner was being pressed with the charge of obscenity after an officer viewed a movie with more explicit scenes, but was not told before. They also argued what "obscene scenes" were. -
In re Oliver
Argued whether or not it was lawful for police to obtain evidence on privately owned land. It was decided that it was constitutional for police to use and prosecute people with evidence that was done out in the open, even if one private land. -
McDonald v. Chicago
Argued whether the Due Process Clause carries over to citizens' right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts ruling and allowed citizens to own guns for self-defense purposes. -
Timbs v. Indiana
Questioned whether the Excessive Fines Clause was incorporated with the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that, yes, it was after the defendant, Timbs, was given a $10,000 bail, after spending 4x that on a car previously.