Supreme Court Landmark Cases, Exams of Advanced Education

Download Supreme Court Landmark Cases and more Exams Advanced Education in PDF only on Docsity!

LEGL 2700 Roessing Test 1 Cases

United States v. Windsor - Answer- Same sex marriage- landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment Kelo v. City of New London - Answer- Eminent domain- case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development District of Colombia v. Heller (2nd amendment) - Answer- Guns- landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee NY Times v. United States - Answer- Publish Pentagon Papers- landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for The New York Times and The Washington Post newspapers to publish the then- classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment Elonis v. United States - Answer- United States Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines requires proof of subjective intent to threaten, or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association - Answer- Obscenity- landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision Snyder v. Phelps - Answer- Phelps family's religion- landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous" Miller v. California - Answer- Obscenity- Landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of

"utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" Brandenburg v. Ohio - Answer- Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire - Answer- Chaplinsky saying things to police- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores - Answer- landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) Gonzales v. Oregon - Answer- U.S. Supreme Court case in which ruled the Court held that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, often referred to as medical aid in dying (ODWDA) Gibbons v. Ogden - Answer- States cannot impede interstate commerce-Landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting - Answer- Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law that punished businesses that hire illegal aliens- Legal Arizona Workers Act was not preempted by federal legislation Marbury v. Madison - Answer- Judicial review Spokeo Inc. v. Robins - Answer- Standing

• Individual must have a standing to pursue a claim
• To have standing, Individual must suffer an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized
• Intangible injuries can be concrete if they actually occurred to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement Mayer v. Belichick - Answer- - To maintain a lawsuit, a plaintiff must have a standing or a legally cognizable claim

• The Third Circuit found that, because the plaintiff did not have legally protected right arising out of the alleged "dishonest" videotaping program, he did not state an actionable injury
• Accordingly, defendant's motions to dismiss were granted World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson - Answer- United States Supreme Court case involving strict products liability, personal injury and various procedural issues and considerations Batson v. Kentucky - Answer- Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case—the dismissal of jurors without stating a valid cause for doing so—may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B. - Answer- Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes - Answer- Class Action
• "Commonality," which requires a plaintiff to show that there are "questions of law or fact common to the class," is an essential element to establish class action -Because the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate commonality, class certification was denied
• Even though class certification was denied, women in the potential class can still bring claims if they can demonstrate discrimination Hollingsworth v. Perry - Answer- cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California. Code of Hammurabi - Answer- First known set of laws with both procedural and substantive laws Schools of Jurisprudence - Answer- Philosophy of law; general body of law interpretations by judges as different from legislation passed by legislators -Legal positivism -Legal realism -Natural law Sea Search Armada v. Republic of Columbia - Answer- Decided on statute of limitations