Court Cases

Card Set Information

Court Cases
2011-11-10 01:42:28
cases amendments

1-10, 13-15, 19
Show Answers:

  1. Lemon v. Kurtzman
    • est. clause case
    • arg: NO to $ bonus to parochial teachers who did NOT teach religion
    • Precedent: "Lemon Test" recognizes language
    • 1must have a secular purpose
    • 2., not excessive entanglement
    • 3. NOT support/ inhibit religion
  2. Engel v. Vitale
    • est. clause
    • ARG: praying at school over intercom prayer created by State Board
    • PREC: court defines what est. clause means: "wall of separation bet. church and state"
  3. Santa Fe ISD v. Doe
    • Rel.
    • ARG: senior class rep. would pray before football game
    • PRE: Praying over PA system by student at school event= unconstitutional bc it is govt funded
  4. Wisconsin v. Yoder
    • (free excercise)
    • amish case
    • ARG: take kids out of school at 14, Wis. argued already established way of life doesnt need more education
    • PRE: free excercise is sovereign over state's decision of higher educated populace.
  5. Reynolds v. U.S.
    • ARG: morman polygamist said outlawing polygamy = unconstitutional
    • PRE: can't outlaw beliefs, but can outlaw PRACTICES
  6. Employment Division v. Smith
    • ARG: nat. amn fired bc he was on peyote sued bc not given unemployment benefits
    • PRE: reaffirmed reynolds v. u.s. , this said could practice peyote, just its not constitutionally protected
  7. Tx v. Johnson
    • (flag burning case)
    • ARG: torched flag is protected under prot. of expression
    • PRE: YEs. Burning flag = protected expression
  8. Tinker v. Des Moines
    • black anti-war band worn by students seen as disruptive
    • ARG: band is free expression
    • PRE: in school environment, student can NOT limit speech UNLESS limitation is "reasonably related to legit. pedigogical concerns"
  9. Roth v. U.S.
    • obscene mail sent through mail, trying to solicit perscriptions
    • PRE:1 obscenity = NOT protected speech
    • 2. community will dictate level of obscenity
  10. Miller v. Calif.
    • obscene material sent thru mail
    • PRE: defined obscenity as 3 part test:
    • 1. pruient int. (morbid)
    • 2. acts that demean wmn
    • 3. lacks any serious, scientific, literary, or political value
  11. Brandenburg v. Ohio
    • clan case
    • PRE: criminal syndicate arrested
  12. Schenck v. U.S.
    • arrested during WWI for dissuading men into draft
    • PRE: appropriate to limit speech when it provokes clear and present danger
  13. Near v. Minnesota
    • (jewish gangster)
    • newspaper trying to prevent article being published
    • PRE: can NOT prevent something from being published
  14. NY Times v. Sullivan
    • (1st amendment press case)
    • Dealt with full page advertisement saying Sheriff = racist
    • PRE: defines liability (important ppl must cover all three, normal just one)
    • 1. has to be false
    • 2. prove that it's harmful to representatives
    • 3. malice, done on purpose when known as false
  15. D.C. v. Heller
    • ARG: created only way to get gun thru permit but NO way to get permit
    • PREC: all have right to own gun (2nd am.) no law can hinder that
  16. Mapp v. Ohio
    • (4th am.)
    • ARG: housing bomber suspected to in Mapp's house, NO warrant, so cops give her fake one, she is arrested for having porn in her nightstand
    • PRE: exclusionary rule
  17. Terry v. Ohio
    • Arg: Terry and Bank appear suspicious, as in about to rob bank, so undercover cop frisks them and arrests for concealment of weapons
    • PRE: "Terry frisk"= constitutional when suspicious, pat-down for sake of safety of public
  18. New Jersey v. TLO
    • girls smoking in bathroom, TLO denies she was smoking, purse searched by teacher , found to have narcotics
    • PRE: reasonable suspicion in school environment to search
  19. California v. Acevedo
    • ARG: police following hime bc suspected to have box of marijuana
    • PRE: have tight to search item w/ probable cause, if object confirmed to be ILLEGAL then can do FULL vehicle search
  20. Minn. v. Dickerson
    • 4th
    • ARG: walks out of crack house , walks other way of car, reasonable cause to search for crack
    • PRE: reasonable suspicion limited to guns
  21. Wyoming v. Houghton
    • 4th
    • ARG: w/prob. cause can they search items others w/in vehicle
    • PRE: if prob. cause to search car, have right to search everything in car
  22. Miranda v. Arizona
    • 5th amendment
    • ARG: arrested for rape , Not read rights, forced confession, police denied him req. to attorney
    • PRE: right against self-incrimination , req. to be informed of rights
  23. Gideon v. Wainwright
    • pool hall, non-capitol felony, could NOT defend himself
    • PRE: anyone accused of felony must have right to attorney
  24. Gregg v. GA
    • hitch hiker kills his driver
    • convicted-> death penalty
    • ARG: is this cruel and unusual punishment?
    • PRE: no, this is not cruel nor unusual
  25. Griswold v. Connecticut
    • (privacy case )
    • ARG: giving info. + med. attention to prevent conception, against Conn. statute
    • PRE: created right to privacy (only w/in marriage)
  26. Roe v. Wade
    • (privacy)
    • wants abortion, argues TX law against abortion that it infringes on her right of choice
    • PRE: expands privacy of choice except 3rd trimester when baby can live on its own
  27. Lawrence v. TX
    • sodimy case
    • PRE: privacy to same sex couples
  28. Plessy v. Ferguson
    • 14th amendment plessy asked to sit in black part of train, 7/8 white,
    • PRE: "seperate but equal"
  29. Korematsu v. U.S.
    • ARG: Japanese internment camps
    • PRE: in times of war, GOVT has right to limit rights of groups (camps = const.)
  30. Brown v. B.O.E.
    Pre: "seperate vut equal" = is inherently unequal
  31. Reg. of Cal. v. Bakke
    • UC-Davis has 16- for special admissions, 84- open to all
    • PRE: quotas are unconstitutional
  32. Adarand v. Pena
    • ARG: govt contract chose hispanic company over lowest bidder
    • PRE: when race is involved, strict scrutiny
  33. Gratz v. Bollinger
    • 14th
    • 100 points to get into U. of Mich.
    • # of pts for perfect SAT = minority race #
    • PRE: race is a factor but among many factors
  34. Hopwood v. TX
    • (Tx Supreme Court case) 14th
    • UT law, over qualified k inhibited by minority
    • PRE: should not be a factor, not ultimate but now resulted to top 10%
  35. Dred Scott v. Sandford
    • ARG: slave, escaped to a free state, asked for freedom since resided in free state
    • PRE: not human but property