Court Cases
Issue: President Adams appointed several Federal Justices as "midnight appointments", President Madison did not want them and witheld their pay, one of the judges brought suit for back paySignifigence: Set up the policy of Judicial ReviewIssue: New Hampshire was attempting to regulate Dartmouth college who claimed they couldn't because they had a royal charterSignifigence: Declared the sanctity of contractsIssue: A man was granted monopoly right for water transport in New York and went against another man granted monopoly rights by the USDecision: In favor of Gibbons (granted by US)Signifigence: Laws of congress are supreme (supercede states)Issue: Maryland attempted to tax the banks in its state (including the BUS)Significance: Congress had the right to a national bank due to the ellastic clause and the states could not interfere with a federal bankIssue: Munn had run a grain wharehouse yet didn't app
haven't found yet sorryWebster v Reproductive HealthIssue: Health officials challenged the missouri statue which defended the rights of unborn childrenDecision: For Missouri (Webster?)Significance: Stated that states could attempt to protect life as long as no anti-abortion laws were present (in favor of life but not against abortion)Gideon v WainwrightIssue: Gideon was charged and had no funds, asked for an attorney and was denied, defended himself, and was convicted. Issue: A girl had been caught smoking on school grounds and brought to the office, the principal searched to find evidence of smoking after she denied it and found illegal drug paraphanialia the girl filed suit to claim the search invalidDecision: For New JerseySignificance: Held that a principal could not illegilly search a studentVernonia School v Acton. haven't found it yet sorryMapp v OhioIssue: Cleveland police forced open doors to Mapp's house (without a warrent) and searchedDecision: For MappSignificance: All evidence obtained by illegal search and seizures are inadmissable in courtRoe v WadeIssue: Single mother (Roe) brought suit challenging Texas law not permitting abortionDecision: For RoeSignificance: Stated that anti-abortion laws were illegal (allowed first trimester abortions)Korematsu v USIssue: Korematsu was convicted for staying in a "military area" (during WWII) and was arrested, he filed suit against his convictionDecision: For the USSignificance: Stated that internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a constitutional actNew Jersey v T. Appealed (because he had no attorney)Decision: For GideonSignificance: Set the precedence for the right for an accussed to have an attorney (and provided for by the state if they can not afford one)Escobedo v IllinoisIssue: Escopedo was arrested and questions by police yet not allowed to see a lawyer and was not advised of his rights, and ended up making incriminating statementsDecision: For EscobedoSignificance: Right to an attorney at questioning and right to remain silentMiranda v ArizonaIssue: Miranda was questioned by police and was not given his rights and made incriminating statementsDecision: For MirandaSignificance: Said confessions could not be used unless a criminal had been advised of his/her rights. ly for a license of public wharehousing (had stated privately then started acquiring many peoples grain and became a public wharehouse)Decision: Against MunnSignificance: Government may regulate the manner in which citizens can use his or her property once it is used for the public good Dred Scott v SanfordIssue: A slave brought suit claiming his freedom because he had resided in a free state for many yearsDecision: The Court rulled against Scottsignificance: The court not only rulled against Scott but claimed that slaves were property and the government could not regulate slavery at allPlessey v FergusonIssue: Plessy was of mixed descent and paid for first class passage on a RailRoad in Louisiana, during the trip he took a while seat and was charged after refusing to leaveDecision: For FergusonSignificance: Stated that seperate but equal facilities were allowedBrown v Board of EducationIssue: The NAACP brought suit against Kansas claiming that seperate but equal facilities could not existDecision: For BrownSignificance: Reputiated Plessy and stated no facilities could be seperate AND equalRegents of University of California v BakkeIssue: The University had a program which set aside seats (quotas) in a medical program to which white students could not apply for, the students attempted to file suit for these seatsDecision: Decided against the UniversitySignificance: Stated that programs designed to allow seats for minorities (at the expence of whites) was unconstitutionalBaker v CarrIssue: Baker brought suit (representing Tennesse voters) saying they were denied rights as legislation classified voters with respect of representationDecision: For BakerSignificance: Gave federal courts the ability to consider cases challenging misappropriation of state legislaturesWeeks v US.
Common topics in this essay:
Significance Stated,
TLO Issue,
Issue Munn,
Issue University,
Issue Baker,
Decision Court,
Ogden Issue,
Issue Escopedo,
Issue Single,
Issue Korematsu,
significance stated,
brought suit,
seperate equal,
seperate equal facilities,
dartmouth college,
court rulled,
statements decision,
incriminating statements,
rights incriminating,
filed suit,
court rulled scott,
rights incriminating statements,
incriminating statements decision,
found sorry,
|
Acceptance Essays
