query: in the case avery v midland county the us supreme court held that

pos: Avery v. Midland County five justices who struck down local district inequality based their decision on the precedent in "Reynolds v. Sims". Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Byron White said, "In a word, institutions of local government have always been a major aspect of our system, and their responsible and responsive operation is today of increasing importance to the quality of life of more and more of our citizens. We therefore see little difference, in terms of the application of the Equal Protection Clause and of the principles of "Reynolds v. Sims", between the exercise of state power through legislatures and its exercise

neg: Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population. Having already held in 1965 in "Reynolds v. Sims" that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court applied the same logic to local government districts for bodies which also have broad policy-making functions. The case was brought by Henry Clifton Avery, Jr., more commonly known as Hank Avery, who was Mayor of the City

neg: Avery v. Midland County et seq." Justices Fortas and Stewart agreed with Justice Harlan that the Writ of Certiorari was improvidently granted as the decision was not yet final, but disagreed as to their reasoning on the merits of the case. Justice Thurgood Marshall took no part in the deliberation of the case. Avery v. Midland County Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 (1968), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that local government districts had to be roughly equal in population. Having already held in 1965 in "Reynolds v. Sims" that disparities in legislative districts violated the Equal Protection Clause

neg: Midland, Texas a significant workforce deficit. According to the Midland Chamber of Commerce, at that time there were almost 2,000 more jobs available in the Permian Basin than there were workers to fill them. John Howard Griffin wrote a history of Midland in 1959, "Land of the High Sky." In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of "Avery v. Midland County". Midland mayor Hank Avery had sued Midland County, challenging the electoral-districting scheme in effect for elections to the County Commissioner's Court. The county districts geographically quartered the county, but the city of Midland, in the northwestern quarter, accounted for

neg: Avery v. Midland County of Midland, Texas. He challenged the districting scheme for the Commissioners Court of Midland County, a five-member county commission with four Commissioners elected in single-member districts and the County Judge elected at-large. One Commissioner's district, which included almost all the City of Midland, had a population of 67,906, according to 1963 estimates. The others, all rural areas, had populations respectively, of about 852; 414; and 828. Avery brought his case in Texas District Court in Midland. Three of the four commissioners testified at trial that population was not a major factor in the districting process. The trial court ruled for

neg: Avery v. Midland County petitioner that each district under the State's constitutional apportionment standard should have "substantially the same number of people." An intermediate appellate court reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reversed that judgment, holding that under the Federal and State Constitutions the districting scheme was impermissible "for the reasons stated by the trial court." It held, however, that the work actually done by the County Commissioners "disproportionately concerns the rural areas" and that such factors as "number of qualified voters, land areas, geography, miles of county roads, and taxable values" could justify apportionment otherwise than on a basis of substantially equal populations. The

neg: Midland County, Texas Midland County, Texas Midland County is a county located in the U.S. state of Texas. As of 2015, the population was 161,077. The county seat is Midland. The county is so named as the county is halfway (midway) between Fort Worth and El Paso on the Texas and Pacific Railway. Midland County is included in the Midland, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area as well as the Midland–Odessa Combined Statistical Area. In 1968, the county lost before the Supreme Court in "Avery v. Midland County" which required local districts to be nearly equal. The city of Midland had most of the county's

neg: Avery v. Midland County by elected officials in the cities, towns, and counties." In dissent, Justice John Marshall Harlan II asserted that the Writ of Certiorari to the Texas Supreme Court was improvidently granted in that the decision was not final, since the Texas court had ordered the County to redistrict. He also resumed his objections to the line of cases started with "Reynolds v. Sims" saying, "I continue to think that these adventures of the Court in the realm of political science are beyond its constitutional powers, for reasons set forth at length in my dissenting opinion in "Reynolds", 377 U.S., at 589

neg: Ahrens v. Clark the case and knew his reasoning. He also knew of "Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court" (1973), in which the Supreme Court held: Justice Stevens used his background from the cases when drafting the majority opinion in "Rasul v. Bush" (2004). The Court held that the US courts had jurisdiction in the US Circuit Court for the District of Columbia over the officers of the executive branch who were the policymakers and ultimate custodians of the detainees and the facility at Guantanamo. Ahrens v. Clark Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case that

neg: Katzenbach v. Morgan Katzenbach v. Morgan Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to enact laws that enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution. Prior to the 1960s, many US states and municipalities used literacy tests to disenfranchise minorities. In 1959, the US Supreme Court held, in "Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections", that literacy tests were not necessarily violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, nor of the 15th Amendment. In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act

neg: Yamataya v. Fisher Yamataya v. Fisher Yamataya v. Fisher, , popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a US Supreme Court case on the US government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation unless the administrative hearing was unfair. However, deportation procedures are subject to constitutional scrutiny, under the Due Process Clause. The case was the first time that the Supreme Court allowed judicial review of a procedural due process claim. The passing of the Chinese Exclusion Act of

neg: Criminal law in the Chase Court one additional opportunity to hear such an original habeas case. Despite intervening statutory developments that decreased the likelihood of division in the circuit courts, the Chase Court heard seventeen of its thirty-six criminal cases on certificates of division. In "Ex parte Milligan" (1866), the Court held that habeas petitions in the circuit courts could be a source of certified questions to the Supreme Court. But, in "United States v. Rosenburgh" (1868) and "United States v. Avery" (1871), the Court held that a motion to quash an indictment could not be so certified, even if the motion calls into question the

neg: Rice/Poindexter case ruling was upheld by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1975. The State of Nebraska then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided Wolff v. Rice, along with a landmark Fourth Amendment case, Stone v. Powell (July 6, 1976), 428 US 465. The Court held that Fourth Amendment claims would no longer be appealed through the federal courts on a writ of habeas corpus. Beginning with Stone v. Powell, state prisoners could only appeal Fourth Amendment claims to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari from the state's supreme court. Rice's appellate counsel, Father

neg: Yamataya v. Fisher Supreme Court decisions would continue to use a procedural due process requirement but refuse to overturn government decisions in both exclusion and deportation contexts. The courts remained reluctant to hear any substantive due process constitutional challenges to both the admission and deportation categories established by Congress. Yamataya v. Fisher Yamataya v. Fisher, , popularly known as the Japanese Immigrant Case, is a US Supreme Court case on the US government's power to exclude and deport certain classes of alien immigrants under the Immigration Act of 1891. The Supreme Court held that the courts may not interfere with a pending deportation

neg: Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico whether Puerto Rico may by statute vest in a political party the power to fill an interim vacancy in the Puerto Rico Legislature. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that such a procedure did not violate the United States Constitution, and the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. The case was of some interest to close

neg: Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act. The case was an appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges enjoining the enforcement, against the appellee, of a marketing program adopted pursuant to the California Agricultural Prorate Act. The Supreme Court held there was a general principle that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the Sherman Act. It held, first, A suit

neg: Parker v. Brown Court clarified its position in later judgments. Parker v. Brown Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of US antitrust law. It held that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the scope of the Sherman Act. The case was an appeal from a decree of a district court of three judges enjoining the enforcement, against the appellee, of a marketing program adopted pursuant to the California Agricultural Prorate Act. The Supreme Court held there was a general principle that actions taken by state governments were exempt from the

neg: Bounds v. Smith Avery", a similar case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 concerning, once again, the extent of prisoners’ rights within the confines of a jail or penitentiary. "Johnson v. Avery" involved a Tennessee convict who petitioned the courts regarding the prison's disciplinary action exacted on the inmate after breaking a prison rule. The rule states, "No inmate will advise, assist or otherwise contract to aid another, either with or without a fee, to prepare Writs or other legal matters. It is not intended that an innocent man be punished. When a man believes he is unlawfully held or illegally

neg: Nathan Clifford held otherwise was the Court of Appeals of Kentucky in 1865 in "Griswold v. Hepburn". The facts in this case center on a debtor whose note was made prior to the passage of the Legal Tender Act, and whether she could be paid back in US notes, or greenbacks. This case went to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. "Hepburn v. Griswold" came before the Supreme Court five years later in 1870. In a 5–3 decision written by Chief Justice Chase, along with Justices Clifford, Nelson, Field, and Grier, the Supreme Court held that the Legal Tender Act

neg: Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County of Virginia. The state court ruled against the plaintiffs, who appealed the case to the U.S. District Court. The students' request was unanimously rejected by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court. "We have found no hurt or harm to either race," the court ruled. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and consolidated with four other cases from other districts around the country into the famous "Brown v. Board of Education" case. In it, the US Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public education was, effectively, unconstitutional and illegal. The ruling was extremely unpopular among

neg: County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning aboriginal title in the United States. The case, sometimes referred to as "Oneida II", was "the first Indian land claim case won on the basis of the Nonintercourse Act." The Supreme Court held that Indian tribes have a common law cause of action for possessory land claims based upon aboriginal title, that the Nonintercourse Act did not preempt that cause of action, and that the

neg: Brenner v. Manson until the eve of the "Manson" case, the Solicitor General had opposed petitions for "certiorari" by disappointed patent applicants on the basis that the CCPA was an Article I court to which the Supreme Court's "certiorari" jurisdiction did not extend. In "Lurk v. United States", however, the Court held that judges of the CCPA (as well as those of the Court of Claims) were Article III judges. In the "Manson" case the Court expressly held, unanimously, that "certiorari" was available to review CCPA decisions. This paved the way for the US Government to seek review in the Supreme Court of

neg: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of immunity from US antitrust law. The Supreme Court held that a state occupational licensing board that was primarily composed of persons active in the market it regulates has immunity from antitrust law only when it is actively supervised by the state. The North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners had relied on the Parker immunity doctrine, established by the Supreme Court case "Parker v. Brown", which

neg: NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co. NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 306 U.S. 292 (1939), is a US labor law case where the US Supreme Court held 5-to-2 that the National Labor Relations Act required decisions of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) to be based on substantial evidence. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling of the Board (requiring an employer to rehire striking workers) for not being based on substantial evidence. The Court also held that only the representative of the workers (the union) could issue collective bargaining proposals under the law, and that proposals transmitted

neg: Luna Torres v. Lynch types of cases, Supreme Court opinions are not necessarily binding on aliens in removal proceedings. In this regard, the Court has expressly stated the following: "Our precedent is to be respected unless the most convincing of reasons demonstrates that adherence to it puts us on a course that is sure error." "This page in most part is based on law of the United States, including statutory and latest published case law." Luna Torres v. Lynch Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an "aggravated felony" under

neg: Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County pursue the case again in court. Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (2018), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California overturned the University of California v. Katherine Rosen, and held that universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. In an opinion by Justice Ming Chin, the Court tossed out the 2010 case in which Katherine Rosen, a former UCLA student, sued the university for negligence when another student stabbed her in a chemistry

neg: Green v. County School Board of New Kent County Green v. County School Board of New Kent County Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968), was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with the freedom of choice plans created to avoid compliance with the Court's mandate in "Brown II". The Court held that New Kent County's freedom of choice plan did not constitute adequate compliance with the school board's responsibility to determine a system of admission to public schools on a non-racial basis. The Supreme Court mandated that the school board must formulate new plans and steps towards realistically converting to

neg: Roper v. Simmons sought review in the US Supreme Court, raising a single issue, "Whether this Court should reconsider its decision in "Roper v. Simmons", 543 U.S. 551 (2005)." The Supreme Court denied certiorari (i.e., declined to take the case for review) on June 19, 2006, without a published dissent. Roper v. Simmons Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled "Stanford v. Kentucky", in which the court had

neg: Ashcroft v. Iqbal was part of the original suit, settled with the US government for $300,000 before the case would reach the Supreme Court. Ashcroft v. Iqbal Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that top government officials were not liable for the actions of their subordinates without evidence that they ordered the allegedly discriminatory activity. At issue was whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, were entitled to qualified immunity against an allegation that they knew of or

neg: Holden v. Hardy Holden v. Hardy Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898), is a US labor law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a limitation on working time for miners and smelters was constitutional. A Utah state law limited the number of work hours for miners and smelters. The Supreme Court held the Utah law was a legitimate exercise of the police power. Such a law is legitimate if there is indeed a rational basis, supported by facts, for the legislature to believe particular work conditions are dangerous. It distinguish the case from laws imposing universal

neg: Hernandez v. Texas Hernandez v. Texas Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the US Supreme Court. Peter Hernandez, a Mexican-American agricultural worker, was convicted for the

neg: United States v. Rabinowitz was denied. He was convicted, but the appellate court reversed the verdict and ruled his rights under the Fourth Amendment had been violated. The US Supreme Court reversed the Appeals Court ruling in a 5-3 decision. Writing for the majority, Justice Sherman Minton wrote that only "unreasonable" searches were banned under the Fourth Amendment; searching the office of a suspected forger at the site of his lawful arrest was held to be reasonable. United States v. Rabinowitz United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56 (1950), was a United States Supreme Court case which the Court held that warrantless searches immediately

neg: Human rights in the United States intersex activists have also secured some forms of legal recognition. Privacy is not explicitly stated in the United States Constitution. In the "Griswold v. Connecticut" case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is implied in the Constitution. In the "Roe v. Wade" case, the Supreme Court used privacy rights to overturn most laws against abortion in the United States. In the "Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health" case, the Supreme Court held that the patient had a right of privacy to terminate medical treatment. In "Gonzales v. Oregon", the Supreme Court held that the Federal Controlled Substances Act can

neg: Perez v. Sharp alone. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Douglas Edmonds held that the statute violated the religious freedom of the plaintiffs, since the anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacrament of matrimony. By its decision in this case, the California Supreme Court became the first court of the 20th century to hold that a state anti-miscegenation law violates the US Constitution. It preceded "Loving v. Virginia", the case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all such state statutes, by 19 years, and antedated the civil rights milestones such as "Brown v. Board of Education"

neg: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act the case. "Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District" is a Supreme Court case about "the level of educational benefit school districts must provide students with disabilities as defined by IDEA. On January 10, 2017, Supreme Court Judges began hearing the case which is described by advocates as "the most significant special-education issue to reach the high court in three decades." On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of students with disabilities saying that meaningful, "appropriately ambitious" progress goes further than what the lower courts had held. In September 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that

neg: Soldal v. Cook County Soldal v. Cook County Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy interests, in both criminal as well as civil contexts. Finally, saying that "certain wrongs affect more than a single right", the Court left open the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against deprivation of property without due process of law

neg: Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County Regents of University of California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, (2018), was a case in which the Supreme Court of California overturned the University of California v. Katherine Rosen, and held that universities owe a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence during curricular activities. In an opinion by Justice Ming Chin, the Court tossed out the 2010 case in which Katherine Rosen, a former UCLA student, sued the university for negligence when another student stabbed her in a chemistry lab. Following this ruling, Rosen can

neg: Rogers v. Tennessee Supreme Court of Tennessee... had recognized the... rule... 'was part of the common law [in 1907]... however [in the underlying case involving Rogers], the court found that the original reasons for recognizing the rule no longer exist [at the time of the Rogers homicide]. The Tennessee Supreme Court abolished the rule in the Rogers homicide case, without Rogers having any notice that the rule change would occur. The US Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Supreme Court's abolition of the common-law year and a day rule could apply retroactively to crimes committed before the court abolished the rule under the

neg: Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority Bosh, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recognized that immunity conflicted with the state constitution which prohibited the use of excessive force. For this reason, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that recognizing immunity in this circumstance would nullify rights granted by the state constitution. Since the decision issued, both state and federal courts have wrestled with the scope of the opinion and how it might apply in contexts outside excessive force within a jail. The case was argued to the Court by lawyers from the Bryan & Terrill law firm. Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental Building Authority Bosh v. Cherokee County Governmental

neg: Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of local governments to charge fees for the use of public places for private activities. By 5-4, the court ruled that an ordinance allowing the local government to set varying fees for different events violated the First Amendment due to the lack of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards" governing the amount of the fee. Prior Supreme Court opinions had held that public officials could charge fees as a pre-condition for

neg: Francis X. Beytagh he argued before the United States Supreme Court representing the United States in "Avery v. Midland County", 390 U.S. 474, which applied the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution to the appointment of state legislatures. Beytagh entered academia in 1970 when he returned to his alma mater to teach at the Notre Dame Law School. Beytagh next served as the Dean of the University of Toledo College of Law from 1976 to 1983. In 1984, he served as the Cullen Professor of Law at the University of Houston Law Center and was a Fulbright Fellow at Trinity College in

neg: Morrison v. National Australia Bank 10(b); at the same time, he held that in this particular case, the defendants should prevail, since both the plaintiffs and defendants were Australian, and the case would be better dealt with by the Australian court system - but unlike the majority, he would apply 10(b) to cases involving non-US securities, where there was a closer connection to the US (e.g. US plaintiffs). Morrison v. National Australia Bank Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims

neg: Agins v. City of Tiburon California Supreme Court's holding that the zoning ordinances did not on their face effect an uncompensated taking. The lower court's decision in Agins v. City of Tiburon was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, in the case of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, and the US Supreme Court's own 1980 Agins v. Tiburon decision was overruled in 1005 in Lingle v. Chevron. The Court thought that the ordinance in question substantially advanced legitimate governmental goals by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open space land to urban uses, thus staving off the ill

neg: Charles Hamilton Houston NAACP, Houston played a role in nearly every civil rights case that reached the US Supreme Court between 1930 and "Brown v. Board of Education" (1954). Houston worked to bring an end to the exclusion of African Americans from juries across the South. He defended African-American George Crawford on charges of murder in Loudoun County, Virginia, in 1933, and saved him from the electric chair. In the related "Hollins v. State of Oklahoma" (1935), Houston led an all-black legal team before the US Supreme Court to appeal another murder case in which the defendant was convicted by an all-white jury

neg: Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the "Exxon Valdez" oil spill should be reduced from US$2.5 billion to US$500 million. The case was appealed from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit had also ruled that Exxon could be held liable for the reckless conduct of the ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, who had left the bridge during the disaster and had

neg: Gomez-Perez v. Potter complaint. The Supreme Court held that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint. Even though it is not explicitly in the Civil Rights Act, the existence of the right can be inferred from the Act's scheme, as necessary to make the rights effective. Gomez-Perez v. Potter Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that federal employees can assert claims for retaliation resulting from filing an age discrimination complaint. The case continued the Court's long-standing position that cause for action following

neg: Betterman v. Montana years in prison, with four years suspended. Betterman ultimately appealed his case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where argued that holding him in the county jail for 14 months violated his constitutional rights, because the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment extended to speedy sentencing. In a unanimous 8–0 ruling, the Montana Supreme Court's decision was upheld. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the decision in an 11-page opinion. Betterman v. Montana Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case which held

neg: County of Riverside v. McLaughlin were held without probable cause. In 1989, the plaintiffs requested the District Court judge issue an injunction ordering the County of Riverside to give probable cause to those who were detained in a reasonable amount of time. The judge granted the request based on the precedent that the County’s practice violated the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the "Gerstein" case. Riverside County then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit combined the "McLaughlin" case together with "McGregor v. County of San Bernardino" (9th Cir. 1989) due to the similarities between the

neg: Holden v. Hardy maximum hour rules, that were unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Holden v. Hardy Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366 (1898), is a US labor law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a limitation on working time for miners and smelters was constitutional. A Utah state law limited the number of work hours for miners and smelters. The Supreme Court held the Utah law was a legitimate exercise of the police power. Such a law is legitimate if there is indeed a rational basis, supported by facts, for the legislature

neg: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), schools must provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and held that the proper standard under the IDEA "is

neg: United Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co the company refused to go to arbitration, and the union began a suit to compel it. The Court of Appeals, upholding the district court, said that the collective agreement had taken out 'management functions' from the arbitration procedure. The Supreme Court held that the case should go to arbitration. Douglas J gave judgment. United Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co United Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co 363 US 574 (1960) is a US labor law case, concerning arbitration over collective agreements for labor rights. Warrior & Gulf Co had a steel transportation company from Chickasaw, Alabama. Its

neg: Illinois v. Lidster Because a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court had reached the opposite conclusion, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear Lidster's case. In "City of Indianapolis v. Edmond", , the US Supreme Court ruled that police checkpoints set up for the purpose of "general crime control" were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that "Edmond" required the trial court to suppress the evidence of Lidster's stop, the Court disagreed. Unlike the checkpoint in "Edmond", the "primary law enforcement purpose" of the stop in this case was to "ask vehicle occupants, as members of the public,

neg: Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Second Circuit, finding that respectful consideration must be granted to a foreign government's statements, but not conclusive effect. The case was the first time that the Chinese government appeared as an amicus curiae in oral argument before the US Supreme Court, and was only the third time that any foreign government appeared as an amicus. Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals, , was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving the interpretation of foreign law in US domestic courts. The case

neg: Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly, 331 N.W.2d 203 (1982) is a US contract law case decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan. It used a risk of loss analysis to justify the denial of recission as a contract remedy despite the presence of mutual mistake. The Pickles bought a three unit dwelling for use as a rental property from the Messerly's, only to discover that an illegal septic system had contaminated the ground. Pickles sought recission and Messerly sought a deficiency judgment. The Supreme Court of Michigan backed away from the

neg: Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 4th 617 (1992), was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court’s decision held that restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service establishments in California can be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons from foreign objects—including natural food parts—that are left in food. William L. Berg represented Jack A. Clark in the 1992 case of Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court—a Supreme Court of California case that changed state and consumer law. While Clark was dining at a restaurant, a one-inch chicken bone that was left

neg: Marsh v. Chambers Court held that the Establishment Clause is not violated when a town board begins their sessions with a sectarian prayer, so long as the town does not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit's opinion in "Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors", which cited "Marsh" and held that town boards may exclude prayers that do not fit within "the Judeo-Christian tradition." Marsh v. Chambers Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding

neg: Bryan v. Itasca County Bryan v. Itasca County Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373 (1976), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state did not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a Native American (Indian) living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so. The case arose when a Minnesota county taxed an Indian's mobile home located on the reservation. The Court ruled that the state did not have the authority to impose such a tax or, more generally, to regulate behavior on the reservation.

neg: United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell $64 million, including $12 million to the plaintiff in the civil case and $52 million to the county and the commonwealth of Virginia. The parties settled, but the trial court refused to vacate the fines to be paid to the county and commonwealth. The Virginia appellate court reversed the trial court, but the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the appellate court. Appeal was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. Were these fines civil, or were they criminal (in which case due process and jury would be required)? The Court, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, held that a contempt sanction

neg: Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, 531 U.S. 70 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving Florida voters during the 2000 presidential election. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested clarification from the Florida Supreme Court regarding a decision it had made. Shortly after the Florida Supreme Court provided those clarifications, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the election in favor of George W. Bush over Al Gore in the case of "Bush v. Gore". The 2000 presidential election was contingent upon who won the popular vote in Florida. Republican

neg: Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal "defendant" cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in "Batson v. Kentucky" (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but didn't address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company" (1991) that the "Batson" prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process. However, in "Polk County v. Dodson", the

neg: Silveira v. Lockyer Kozinski. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review. This decision conflicted with the holding of the Fifth Circuit in "United States v. Emerson". In the U.S. Supreme Court case of "District of Columbia v. Heller", the opinion in "Silveira v. Lockyer" was overruled. The Supreme Court held in "Heller" that the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals. The Supreme Court also later held in "McDonald v. Chicago", in 2010, that the Second Amendment is an incorporated right, meaning that it is applicable to state governments as well as the Federal government. Silveira v. Lockyer "Silveira v.

neg: Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. as the District Court’s decision stood. The Supreme Court held that the questions in this case were fundamental to the further conduct of the case and the Court of Appeals handled this case properly. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp was a 1964 Supreme Court case that held that pre-trial appeals may be made on non-final issues if the trial judge, in his discretion, certifies a question of controlling law to the appellate court and the appellate court allows the appeal. The Petitioner, the administrator of her son, Daniel Gillespie’s estate, brought suit against

neg: Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1825&context=llr Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, 1 Cal. 4th 617 (1992), was a Supreme Court of California case in which the court’s decision held that restaurants, grocery stores, and other food service establishments in California can be held liable for injuries sustained by patrons from foreign objects—including natural food parts—that are left in food. William L. Berg represented Jack A. Clark in the 1992 case of Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court—a Supreme Court of California case that changed state and consumer law. While Clark was dining at a restaurant,

neg: Semayne's case California" (1963), a divided Court discovered that the limitation was extended to the states by the US Constitution. However, in "Wilson v. Arkansas" (1995) the US Supreme Court created an exception to prevent the destruction of evidence and in "Hudson v. Michigan" (2006), it held in a 5-4 vote that the exclusionary rule does not require the suppression of evidence seized by police during an illegal force entry. Recently, police in the United States often give no notice before forced home entry during the widespread use of no-knock warrants. Semayne's case Semayne's Case (January 1st, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91,

neg: Florida v. Bostick Florida v. Bostick Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a "per se" rule imposed by the Florida Supreme Court that held consensual searches of passengers on buses were always unreasonable. The Court ruled that the fact that the search takes place on a bus is one factor in determining whether a suspect feels free to decline the search and walk away from the officers. The sheriff's department in Broward County, Florida, instituted a drug interdiction program. A bus bound from Miami to Atlanta made a stop in Fort Lauderdale, and

neg: Rent regulation set by local authorities mirror escalating prices in the non-regulated private market. Rent regulation in the United States is an issue for each state. In 1921, the US Supreme Court case of "Block v. Hirsh" held by a majority that regulation of rents in the District of Columbia as a temporary emergency measure was constitutional, but shortly afterwards in 1924 in "Chastleton Corp v. Sinclair" the same law was unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court. After the 1930s New Deal, the Supreme Court ceased to interfere with social and economic legislation, and a number of states adopted rules. In

neg: Fernandez v. California Fernandez v. California Fernandez v. California, 571 U.S. ___ (2014), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that explored the limits of "Georgia v. Randolph", a 2006 case that held that consent to search a dwelling is invalid in the presence of an objecting co-resident. "Fernandez," however, held that when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search. "Fernandez v. California" is governed by two cases: The 1974 case "United States v. Matlock" and the 2005 case "Georgia v. Randolph". In "Matlock" the U.S. Supreme Court laid out

neg: Gold cyanidation ban Environmental Information Center that was approved through a referendum on November 6, 1998. The law was codified in MCA 82-4-390. In the "Seven Up Pete Venture v. State" case, the Supreme Court of Montana found that the ban does not constitute a violation of the Contract Clause of the US Constitution. The US state of Wisconsin banned in 2001 the usage of cyanides for mining or ore processing. The Summit, Costilla, Gunnison, Conejos and Gilpin counties in Colorado banned cyanide mining. However, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in "Colorado Mining Association v. Board of Commissioners of Summit County" that the

neg: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC using the Court to address regulatory capture, speculating that even the FTC has been captured. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 574 U.S. ___ (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case on the scope of immunity from US antitrust law. The Supreme Court held that a state occupational licensing board that was primarily composed of persons active in the market it regulates has immunity from antitrust law only when it is actively supervised by the state. The North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners had relied

neg: C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band, Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma based upon sovereign immunity and the tribe appealed. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed and the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to review the case. It was next appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. During the time the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided "Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc." In view of that decision, the decision of the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals was vacated and the case remanded. On remand, the Court of Civil Appeals held that the Potawatomi did have sovereign immunity and C & L appealed. Several other courts had held that

neg: Jamal Udeen Al-Harith Constitutional Rights and a private law firm. The case went through several levels of hearings: the US District Court, the Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court. Following the US Supreme Court's decision of "Boumediene v. Bush" (2008), which ruled that detainees had the right to access federal courts directly, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the US District Court. It dismissed the case in 2009 on the grounds of "limited immunity" for government officials, holding that at the time in question, the courts had not clearly established that torture was prohibited in the treatment of detainees at

neg: Safford Unified School District v. Redding Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school." Essex, N. (2010). The US Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Strip Searches in Public Schools. The Clearing House, 83, 105-108. Safford Unified School District v. Redding Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs (Ibuprofen) presented a danger

neg: Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. former employee, because they fired him, he was no longer protected. The Court agreed with the view expressed by the EEOC. Thomas J wrote for the court, "EEOC quite persuasively maintains that it would be destructive to [the purposes of anti-bias law] for an employer to be able to retaliate with impunity." Robinson eventually lost his original race discrimination case against Shell Oil Company. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S.

neg: Robers v. United States the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date the banks took title to them since that was when "part of the property" was "returned." The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate and District courts.<ref name="http://supreme.justia.com"></ref> Robers v. United States Robers v. United States, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a US criminal law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that restitution in cases involving mortgage fraud is determined by the actual money lent not the value of the property. Benjamin Robers had been convicted of mortgage fraud. The District Court had ordered Robers

neg: Tumey v. Ohio Tumey v. Ohio Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), is a US Supreme Court case, concerning the due process of Judicial disqualification. The court struck down an Ohio law that financially rewarded public officials for successfully prosecuting cases related to Prohibition. The court's decision in this case continues to provide precedent today in many cases involving judicial impartiality. The mayor of the village of North College Hill, Ohio received $12 for every defendant convicted before him. Ed Tumey was convicted before the mayor of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. The court held that Tumey's conviction violated the Fourteenth Amendment, reasoning

neg: Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. courts, attorneys and scholars frequently cite "Henningsen" as the landmark case that established strict liability for defective products in the United States. However, the majority of US courts, attorneys, and law professors usually cite "Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co." and the Supreme Court of California as the source of the doctrine. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. In Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc., 32 N.J. 358, 161 A.2d 69 (N.J. 1960), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty that disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid. On May 7, 1955, Mr.

neg: Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a federal prisoner who sought to challenge his current sentence by arguing it was enhanced based on an unconstitutional prior conviction. A divided Court held that such challenges could not be brought. The decision was based on a reading of the statute in question, not a Sixth Amendment constitutional analysis. Edward R. Coss, Jr., had an extensive criminal record. By the age of 16 he had been "adjudged a juvenile delinquent

neg: Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Supreme Court had accurately interpreted Florida property law. In an intensive review of Florida case law, the Supreme Court held that the Florida doctrine of avulsion, which holds that land created by a sudden event belongs to the owner of the seabed, applies to beach restoration. Because the state owns the seabed, there could be no taking. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court complained that the District Court of Appeal, and the parties had never discussed the doctrine of avulsion in their briefings or rulings below. Accordingly, the US Supreme Court ruled the burden is on the property owner to show

neg: Salim Hamdan in both the US civil and military systems of law. On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld". It also considered whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to enforce the articles of the 1949 Geneva convention and whether Congress had the power to prevent the Court from reviewing the case of an accused enemy combatant before it was tried by a military commission, as had happened in this case. It asserted it had that authority. In a 5-3 plurality, the Court held that the military commissions lacked "the power to proceed because their structures and

neg: Shafer v. South Carolina Shafer v. South Carolina Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U.S. 36 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the ability of a defendant to tell the jury that, absent a penalty of death, a penalty of life imprisonment would not permit early release of a prisoner on parole. While the question had been decided in the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina", this case dealt with the extent of the ruling. In 1994, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of "Simmons v. South Carolina". The U.S. Supreme Court held in this

neg: Janus v. AFSCME Janus v. AFSCME Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark US labor law United States Supreme Court case concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment, overturning the 1977 decision in "Abood v. Detroit Board of Education" that had previously allowed such fees. The National

neg: Rogers v. Lodge Rogers v. Lodge Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an at-large election system for a large rural county with a large black population violated the Equal Protection Clause. Burke County, Ga., a large, predominantly rural county, had an at-large system for electing members of its governing Board of Commissioners. No black person had ever been elected to the Board. Eight black citizens of Burke County, Georgia, brought a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging that the county's

neg: Duren v. Missouri the Supreme Court held that systematic exclusion of women from the jury pool resulted in jury pools that were not representative of the general population. The conviction was overturned and remanded back to trial court. Five other cases before the Supreme Court were also decided in the same way: "Harlin v. Missouri", (439 U.S. 459), "Lee v. Missouri", (439 U.S. 461), "Arrington v. Missouri", "Burnfin v. Missouri", "Combs v. Missouri" and "Minor v. Missouri". The decision was held to be retroactive. Duren v. Missouri Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case related to

neg: Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, in certain circumstances, a court may order that parents be reimbursed for unilaterally withdrawing disabled children from schools that do not comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Parents of a learning-disabled child alleged that the child's public school did not provide appropriate resources, and the parents sought reimbursement for costs they incurred for placing their child in a private school. The United States District Court for

neg: Bush v. Gore v. Gore" occurred on December 11. Theodore Olson, a Washington, D.C. lawyer and future Solicitor General, delivered Bush's oral argument. New York lawyer David Boies argued for Gore. During the brief period when the U.S. Supreme Court was deliberating on "Bush v. Gore", the Florida Supreme Court provided clarifications that the U.S. Supreme Court had requested on December 4 in the case of "Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board". Because of the extraordinary nature and argued urgency of the case, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in "Bush v. Gore" on December 12, 2000, less than a day

neg: Andersen v. King County voters approved the legislation on November 6. In the case, King County Superior Court Judge William L. Downing ruled that the state law prohibiting same-sex marriages, or DOMA, was unconstitutional, finding for the plaintiffs on August 4, 2004. The judge ruled that restricting the institution of marriage to opposite sex couples "is not rationally related to any legitimate or compelling state interest." The ruling was appealed to the state Supreme Court. In 2005, the "Andersen v. Sims" case was consolidated with "Castle v. State", another case that was appealed to the Washington Supreme Court from a lower court in Thurston

neg: Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. Elektra Records Co. v. Gem Electronic Distributors, Inc. was an important case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York that concerned copyright infringement, which held that secondary persons or entities could be liable for that tort under certain circumstances, and is also called the "'make-a-tape' case". The facts were that: Federal courts have held that secondary tort liability exists when: Knowledge of the infringement of the copyright is the essential element that "Elektra Records" developed. This case was used as a precedent for the US Supreme

neg: Nishikawa v. Dulles findings on Nishikawa's credibility. Nishikawa v. Dulles Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a dual US/Japanese citizen who had served in the Japanese military during World War II could not be held to have lost his US citizenship unless the United States could prove that he had acted voluntarily. Mitsugi Nishikawa, born in California to Japanese parents, went to Japan to study, and he was conscripted into the Japanese military in early 1941. After the end of the war, Nishikawa was informed by US officials that

neg: Nishikawa v. Dulles Nishikawa v. Dulles Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a dual US/Japanese citizen who had served in the Japanese military during World War II could not be held to have lost his US citizenship unless the United States could prove that he had acted voluntarily. Mitsugi Nishikawa, born in California to Japanese parents, went to Japan to study, and he was conscripted into the Japanese military in early 1941. After the end of the war, Nishikawa was informed by US officials that he had lost his

neg: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied in fact contract exists as, “an agreement … founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding.” The judgment of the United States Court of Claims dismissing the appellant's action for compensation for costs of constructing temporary barracks

neg: Olsen v. Nebraska that it can no longer be deemed a controlling authority." Justice Douglas explained that "[w]e are not concerned, however, with the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation" and concluded that the Court should defer to the state's determinations about the propriety of the legislation. The Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Nebraska remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Nebraska for further proceedings. Olsen v. Nebraska Olsen v. Nebraska, 313 U.S. 236 (1941), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Supreme Court of Nebraska erred when it struck down

neg: Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States to house the National Guard at piers leased by it to appellee was affirmed. The governmental officials involved in the construction at the piers had no authority to order the work so there was no express agreement. Further, the court reasoned there was no substantial basis for an implied in fact contract, because construction was voluntarily undertaken by appellant, with no mention of compensation. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923), is a US Supreme Court case on contract law. The Supreme Court held that an implied

neg: Penry v. Johnson Penry v. Johnson Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case which concerned whether instructions given to a Texas jury were constitutionally adequate to emphasize the mitigating factors in sentencing of mental retardation. The Texas courts had determined the sentencing instructions were consistent with prior Supreme Court jurisprudence, but the Court in a divided decision reversed, finding the sentencing instructions insufficient. This was the second time Penry's case made it to the Supreme Court. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court held in "Penry v. Lynaugh" that Johnny Paul Penry had been sentenced to death

neg: Wisconsin v. Yoder of the eighth grade because of their parents' religious beliefs. The three families were represented by Jonas Yoder (one of the fathers involved in the case) when the case went to trial. They were convicted in the Green County Court. Each defendant was fined the nominal sum of $5. Thereafter the Wisconsin Supreme Court found in Yoder's favor. Thereupon, Wisconsin appealed that ruling in the US Supreme Court. The Amish did not believe in going to court to settle disputes but instead follow the biblical command to "turn the other cheek." Thus, the Amish are at a disadvantage when it

neg: Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In a 4–3 decision, the court held that the maximum fee agreements, as price-fixing agreements, are "per se" unlawful under § 1 of the Sherman Act. In "Maricopa", the Burger court deviated from the antitrust methodology based on the writings of Chicago School scholars Robert Bork and Richard Posner. In doing so, the court made "antitrust analysis once again confused and haphazard". Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332 (1982), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving antitrust law. A society of doctors in Maricopa

neg: NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. NLRB v. Sands Manufacturing Co. National Labor Relations Board v. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U.S. 332 (1939), is US labor law case, decided by a majority of 5 to 2 by the US Supreme Court, which overturned a decision by the National Labor Relations Board because it was not supported by substantial evidence. The Court defined collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act to mean that proposals and responses to proposals were pending, and that future meetings were being planned. Absent such conditions, bargaining was not occurring. The Court also held that an employer did not violate the Act

neg: National Legion of Decency who was responsible for Legion activities in that diocese. In 1915, the Supreme Court heard a case regarding censorship in motion pictures called "Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio"; the Supreme Court held that states could censor films before they were released. In 1948, the Supreme Court reversed the "Mutual" decision in the "United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc." case. This is the case that established the Supreme Court's position on censoring films: that they are protected under the First Amendment as part of freedom of the press. Just four years later, in 1952, the Supreme Court heard

neg: Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 markedly more demanding than the 'merely more than "de minimis"' test applied by the Tenth Circuit." Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), schools must provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the United States Court

neg: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Law Cases and American Society." DeShaney v. Winnebago County DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of

neg: DeShaney v. Winnebago County DeShaney v. Winnebago County DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1980, a divorce court in Wyoming gave custody of Joshua DeShaney, born in 1979, to his father Randy DeShaney, who moved to Winnebago County, Wisconsin. A police report of child abuse and a hospital