-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago was a ruling that incorporated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. -
Gitlow v. New York
legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 8, 1925, that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of free speech, which states that the federal “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” applies also to state governments. -
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. -
De Jonge v Oregon
De Jonge was arrested under a criminal syndicalism law for speaking at a peaceful Communist Party meeting. -
Cantwell v. Conneticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too. -
Emerson v Board of Education
In Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the Supreme Court upheld a statute from New Jersey and a local school board’s authorization to reimburse parents for the expense of bus transportation to school on public transportation for students who attended religiously affiliated, nonpublic schools. -
In Re Oliver
In re Oliver 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 " -
Mapp v. Ohio
The case began in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1957 when police demanded entry into 34-year-old Dollree Mapp's home. Although they believed Mapp was hiding a suspected bomber, the police had no search warrant. After calling her lawyer for advice on what to do, Mapp refused to let them in. -
Ker v California
This Court's long-established recognition that standards of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment are not susceptible of Procrustean application is carried forward when that Amendment's proscriptions are enforced against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 374 U.S. 33. -
Robinson v California
Robinson v. California is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. -
Edwards v South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house. -
Gideon v Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Petitioner, who was on probation after pleading guilty to a gambling misdemeanor, was ordered to testify before a referee appointed by a state court to investigate gambling and other criminal activities. He refused to answer questions about the circumstances of his arrest and conviction on the ground that the answers might incriminate him. -
Pointer v. Texas
Petitioner was arrested and brought before a state judge for preliminary hearing on a robbery charge. The complaining witness testified but petitioner, who had no counsel, did not cross-examine. Petitioner was later indicted and tried. The witness had moved to another State, and the transcript of his testimony at the hearing was introduced over petitioner's objections that he was denied the right of confrontation. He was convicted and the highest state court affirmed. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that American law enforcement officers cannot interrogate suspects without first informing them of their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. -
Washington v Texas
Washington v. Texas is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution (guaranteeing the right of a criminal defendant to force the attendance of witnesses for their side) is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
Klopfer v. North Carolina was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. -
Duncan v Louisiana
Duncan v. Louisiana was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton v. Maryland is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut. -
Schlib v Kuebel
On January 16, 1969, Schilb was arrested and charged with leaving the scene of an accident, on which he posted $50 cash bail security and obstructing traffic on which $25 cash bail was posted. He was found guilty of one charge and not guilty of the other. -
Agersinger v Hamilton
Jon Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon under a state statute which imposed a possible sentence of up to six months incarceration. -
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. -
Mcdonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. -
Timbs v Indiana
Tyson Timbs pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing in a controlled substance and conspiracy to commit theft.
