-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
It involves the eminent domain provision of the 5th amendment. The City of Chicago wanted to connect two parts of a street that was over private property, owned by many individuals but also a right-of-way owned by the railroad corporation. The land got condemned, with the individuals being given compensation and the corporation $1. The Court agreed that this violated their rights. -
Gitlow v. New York
It involves the freedom of speech provision of the 1st amendment. Gitlow was a socialist arrested for distributing "Left Wing Manifesto", in which there were calls for socialism through action. He was convicted under the Criminal Anarchy Law, which was a law made to punish advocating to overthrow the government by force. Gitlow said that since no action came from it that the state was punishing without basis of concrete action. The Supreme Court ruled the law to be just. -
Near v. Minnesota
It involves the freedom of press (prior restraint) of the 1st amendment. The Saturday Press accused locals of being involved with gangsters. People retaliated by saying that this violated the Public Nuisance Law. The Court found the law to generally violate the first amendment because it constituted as prior restraint. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
It involves the right to freedom of assembly provision of the 1st amendment. Dirk DeJonge gave a speech at a meeting being held by the Communist Party. It was raided by police during the speech and DeJonge was arrested and charged with violation of Oregon's syndicalism statute. He argued that there wasn't enough evidence for his conviction. It was decided that Oregon's statute when applied in this instance went against the 1st amendment. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
It involves the free exercise of religion provision of the 1st amendment. Newton Cantwell and his sons were Jehovah's Witnesses living in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood. They were going door to door and approaching people on the street as well. Two of the approached reacted negatively. Cantwell and his sons got charged with breaching the peace and not having a certificate saying they could solicit public funds. The Court ruled unanimously that Cantwell's action were protected. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
It involves the government establishment of religion provision in the 1st amendment. The case involved the use of taxpayer dollars toward buses for religious schools as well as public schools. It was ruled that there was no breach of the separation of church and state. -
In re Oliver
It involves the public trial provision of the 6th amendment. William Oliver was a local pinball operator subpoenaed to the grand jury for questioning about local gambling. He wasn't accused of a crime or represented by an attorney. It was decided that he'd given false answers and evaded questions. He was convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to 60 days in jail without even getting a counsel. Oliver got an attorney. The Supreme Court decided that they failed to uphold his rights. -
Mapp v. Ohio
It involves the exclusionary rule provision of the 4th amendment. Dollree Mapp was illegally searched by the police and found to have obscene materials. She appealed this ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures that violated the 4th amendment weren't admissible in state court. This encouraged discussion on when the exclusionary rule could be used. -
Robinson v. California
It involves the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the 8th amendment. A California law stated that made being addicted to narcotics illegal. A defendant was found guilty. The Court decided imprisoning people with "illness" such as narcotic addiction. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
It involves the freedom to petition provision of the 1st amendment. 187 black students got convicted with breaching the peace when they peacefully assembled at the South Carolina State Government. They were arrested throughout when they didn't obey police instruction to disperse. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
It involves the right to counsel in felony cases provision of the 6th amendment. Clarence Earl Gideon got charged with breaking and entering, a felony, and when he appeared to court with no lawyer, he requested one from the court. He was not appointed one, represented himself in court, and got found guilty. The Court incorporated that provision in with a decision in support of Gideon. -
Ker v. California
It involves the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (warrants) provision of the 4th amendment. Sherriffs investigating drug dealing in the area had purchased from a dealer, who was then seen on tape meeting with Ker, as well as meeting again the following day. They went to Ker's apartment, arresting him upon seeing marijuana in various places around the house. Ker claimed because they had no warrant it violated their rights. The Court decided it wasn't unlawful. -
Malloy v. Hogan
It involves the protection against self-incrimination provision of the 5th amendment. William Malloy was arrested in a gambling raid. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and eventually had two years probabtion. When Malloy was ordered to testify about gambling, he refused and was jailed for contempt and held until he answered questions. He filed a habeas corpus petition. The Court ruled in his favor and thus incorporated that provision to apply to states, which had been previously ruled opposite. -
Pointer v. Texas
It involves the right to confront witnessed provision of the 6th amendment. Bob Granville Pointer was identified by a witness as having robbed a 7-11 manager named Kenneth Phillips. He was found with money in his shoes and on his person and then arrested along with his accomplice, Earl Dillard. During the trial, the state tried to offer a transcript of Phillips' testimony, as he'd moved states, and it was decided by the Supreme Court that this violated Pointer's right to confront Phillips. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
It involves the right to a speedy trial provision of the 6th amendment. Peter Klopfer was charged with criminal trespassing when he partook in a civil rights demonstration in a restaurant. The jury didn't reach a verdict in his case. Klopfer objected to a nolle prosequi, which would hold the case indefinitely. It was decided by the Supreme Court that this violated his right. -
Miranda v. Arizona
It involves the right to be informed of rights upon arrest provision of the 5th amendment. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and questioned by police for involvement in kidnapping and rape. He confessed after two hours. The confession was used as evidence and he was found guilty. The Court found this to be a violation of his rights. -
Washington v. Texas
It involves the right to a compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense (subpoenas) provision of the 6th amendment. Jackie Washington was convicted of murder. At trial, Washington said that Charles Fuller, a person already convicted of the same murder, had actually committed the crime and that Fuller could testify to this. The prosecution objected on the basis that a person charged with the same crime can't testify on another's behalf. The Court ruled that it violated the 6th amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
It involves the right to trial by jury in criminal cases provision of the 6th amendment. Gary Duncan, who was a black teenager, was found guilty of assaulting another white teenager by slapping on the elbow, allegedly. He was sentences to 60 days in jail and fined $150. He requested trial by jury and was denied. The Court agreed that his rights were obstructed. -
Benton v. Maryland
It involves protection against double jeopardy provision of the 5th amendment. Benton was charged with burglary and larceny and found guilty and not guilty respectively. He appealed on the grounds of the grand and petit juries being chosen unconstitutionally. It was remanded and he went u to a new grand jury and was found guilty for both offenses. He said that being found guilty twice for larceny was double jeopardy. The Maryland S.C. affirmed. This meant that double jeopardy applies to states. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
It involves the protection against excessive bail provision of the 8th amendment. Schilb got two traffic charges and secured bail before his trial. He was convicted of one offense and acquitted of the other. 1% of his bail wasn't repaid after Schilb paid his fines. The Court sided with the court in dismissing Schilb's complaints, as the fine was an all-around fee given to all. -
Rabe v. Washington
It involves the right to be informed of nature of accusations of the 6th amendment. A drive-in movie manager was prosecuted under an anti-obscenity law. He argued that this violated his rights. It was decided that the obscenity law didn't give "fair notice" to people like Rabe, as in the kind of things prohibited and the punishments if the law were to be broken. The Court agreed unanimously. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
It involves the right to counsel for imprisonable misdemeanors provision of the 6th amendment. Jon Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, which is a misdemeanor. He was not given an attorney for his trial and was sentenced to ninety days in jail. The Court agreed that his rights were violated. -
McDonald v. Chicago
It involves the right to keep and bear arms provision of the 2nd amendment. Lawsuits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park over their gun bans after the Heller case, where the Court ruled a D.C. handgun law to be unconstitutional. In this case, it was argued that the 2nd amendment should also apply to the states and as it did federally in the Heller case. The Court agreed. -
Timbs v. Indiana
It involves the protection against excessive fines provision of the 8th amendment. Tyson Timbs was convicted of one charge felony dealing and one charge conspiracy to commit theft. He was sentenced to six years (five were to be suspended) as well as paying $1200 of fees and costs. When the state tried to forfeit his Land Rover (which he had purchased from his father's life insurance money and transported heroin with), the trial court said it was excessive. The Supreme Court sided with Timbs.