-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
The City of Chicago wanted to connect two sections of Rockwell Street over private property between 18th and 19th Streets. This property was owned by various individuals but also included a right-of-way owned by the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Corporation. To accomplish this, the city petitioned in Cook County Circuit Court. The railroad appealed the judgment, alleging that the condemnation of its property in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto" called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterances without the propensity of concrete action. The appellate division affirmed his conviction, as did the New York Court of Appeals. -
Near v. Minnesota
The Saturday Press violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory. The law provided that any person regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined from committing or maintaining the nuisance. The state supreme court upheld both the temporary injunction and the permanent injunction that was eventually issued by the trial court. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
On July 27, 1934, at a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county strike in progress in Portland. While the meeting was in progress, police raided it. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. The law defines criminal syndicalism as the doctrine of crime, physical violence, sabotage, unlawful acts, or methods of accomplishing or political change or revolution. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. They were traveling door-to-door and approaching people on the street. Two pedestrians reacted angrily to an anti-Catholic message. Cantwell and his sons were arrested and charged with violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before soliciting funds from the public and inciting a common-law breach of the peace. -
In re Oliver
In re Oliver, (1948), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant to be informed of the nature of the accusation and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools that benefitted from this law were parochial Catholic schools. Arch R. Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the U.S. state governments.The Supreme Court Mapp this involved the incorporation as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which applicable only actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment's due process. -
Robinson v. California
A jury found the defendant guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Defendant sought further review from the United States Supreme Court. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace for peacefully assembling at the South Carolina State Government. Their purpose was to submit a protest of grievances to the citizens of South Carolina, and to the legislative bodies of South Carolina. During the course of the peaceful demonstration, the police arrested the students after they did not obey an order to disperse. The students were convicted of breach of the peace. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. -
Ker v. California
George Douglas and Diane Ker were convicted of possession of marijuana in Southern California. The two were arrested after officers from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department saw George Ker meeting another person suspected of selling illegal drugs. Although lighting conditions prevented the officers observing this meeting from seeing any exchange of money or drugs between Ker and the other man, they believed Ker was part of a drug-trading ring. -
Malloy v. Hogan
After pleading guilty to pool selling, a misdemeanor, he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, but the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. Some 16 months following his plea, a Superior Court-appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County. When Malloy refused, "on grounds it may tend to incriminate him" he was imprisoned for contempt and held until willing to answer questions. -
Pointer v. Texas
Pointer was indicted on the robbery charge. At trial, Pointer testified on his own behalf, denying his alleged role in the robbery and swearing he had never been in the 7-11 store. The police arrested Pointer and Lloyd Earl Dillard and took them before a state judge for a preliminary hearing; the state charged them with robbing Phillips of $375 by assault, violence, or by putting in fear of life or bodily injury, in violation of Texas law. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
The State of North Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. At trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. The Superior Court judge continued the case twice when the state moved for a nolle prosequi with leave. This would allow the state to suspend their prosecution indefinitely and return the case to the docket in the future. -
Washington v. Texas
Following a jury trial, Jackie Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. At trial, Washington alleged that Charles Fuller, already convicted for the same murder, actually shot the victim while Washington attempted to stop the shooting. Washington claimed that Fuller would testify to these facts, but the prosecution objected based on a state statute that prevented persons charged in the same crime from testifying on behalf of one another. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Gary Duncan, a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. -
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. He won his appeal on the grounds that the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him was selected unconstitutionally. The case was remanded and Benton chose to confront a new grand jury. It indicted him for larceny and burglary; the petit jury found him guilty of both charges. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Illinois law provides three ways in which an accused can secure his pretrial release personal recognizance; execution of a bail bond, with a deposit of 10% of the bail, all but 10% of which is returned on performance of the bond conditions, after he paid his fine, retention charge is imposed on only one segment of the class gaining pretrial release, and on the poor but not on the rich; The trial court dismissed Schilb's complaint, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. -
Rabe v. Washington
Rabe v. Washington was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. On 29 August 1968, William Rabe, the manager of a drive-in movie theater in Richland, Washington, was arrested on obscenity charges for showing the film Carmen, Baby. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington State had no notice under the Sixth Amendment where a film was shown was an element of the offense. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney. -
McDonald v. Chicago
Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. -
Timbs v. Indiana
The trial court denied the state’s action, ruling that the forfeiture would be an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, characterizing it as grossly disproportional to the seriousness of the offense. The court also noted that the maximum statutory fine for Timbs’ felony dealing charge was $10,000, and the vehicle was worth roughly four times that amount when Timbs purchased it. The trial court ordered the state to release the vehicle immediately. The court of appeals affirmed.