Search: in
Lochner v New York
Lochner v New York in Encyclopedia Encyclopedia
  Tutorials     Encyclopedia     Videos     Books     Software     DVDs  
       
Encyclopedia results for Lochner v New York

Lochner v New York





Encyclopedia results for Lochner v New York

  1. Oswald v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Oswald v. New York ArgueDate ArgueYear 1792 DecideDate DecideYear 1792 FullName Oswald v. New York USVol 2 USPage 401 Holding default against New York SCOTUS 1789 1792 Majority JoinMajority none Oswald v. New York 2 U.S. 401 Dall. 1792 was the first Supreme Court of the United States decision where an individual sued a state. No appearance was entered for the defendant state and default judgment was rendered against the state. Opinion Dallas records the case as follows blockquote Oswald, Administrator v. the State of New York February Term, 1792 Summons. In this case the Marshall had returned the writ served and now Sergeant moved for a distringas , to compel an appearance on the part of the State. While, however, the court held the motion under advisement, it was voluntarily withdrawn, and the suit discontinued. ref http supreme.vlex.com vid oswald v new york 20074776 2 U.S. 401 1792 ref blockquote See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 2 References reflist http books.google.com books?id K7jhBkyoKSUC&pg PA61&lpg PA61&dq oswald v new york 1792&source bl&ots 4xEHCZhZPW&sig W Bu93kK2yQzA1iM1fbt8mT8I2g&hl en&ei 3wAPTdnlIYKosAPPjZXdAg&sa X&oi book result&ct result&resnum 4&ved 0CDEQ6AEwAw v onepage&q oswald 20v 20new 20york 201792&f false Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1792 in United States case law SCOTUS stub ...   more details



  1. Vermont v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Vermont v. New York ArgueDate February 29 ArgueYear 1972 DecideDate April 24 DecideYear 1972 FullName Vermont v. New York, et al. USVol 406 USPage 186 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding The State of Vermont is given permission to file an original complaint against the State of New York and International Paper Corporation. SCOTUS 1972 1975 PerCuriam yes LawsApplied Vermont v. New York , case citation 406 U.S. 186 1972 was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court giving the State of Vermont permission to file an original complaint against the State of New York and International Paper Corporation. When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction with the United States Supreme Court . This is one of the very limited circumstances where the court acts as original jurisdiction, e.g. a trial court. In all other cases the court acts as the highest level appellate court in the United States. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 406 Text of case decision ussc 406 186 1972 Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1972 in United States case law SCOTUS case stub ...   more details



  1. Lemmon v. New York

    Lemmon v. New York 1852 , a decision by the Superior Court of the City of New York, granted freedom to slaves who were brought into New York by their Virginia slave owners, while in transit to Texas. ref cite book last Heidler first David Stephen coauthors Jeanne T. Heidler, David J. Coles title Encyclopedia of the American Civil War a political, social, and military pages Page 1174 url http books.google.ca books?id SdrYv7S60fgC&pg PA1174&dq Lemmon v. New York&ei WRpFS4zCNaXczQSY68TsDQ&client firefox a&cd 3 v onepage&q Lemmon 20v. 20New 20York&f false isbn 9780393047585 year 2002 publisher W.W. Norton & Co. ref Background In November 1852, Jonathan Lemmon and his wife Juliet, who were residents of Virginia, to the steamer City of Richmond from Norfolk, Virginia to New York with eight slaves ... relied on the Supreme Court s ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 to argue to the New York Court ... 1852, Louis presented a petition to one of the Justices of the Superior Court of New York City, the Honorable Elijah Paine, for a writ of Habeas corpus producing the slaves based on an 1817 New York law that stated blockquote No person held as a slave shall be imported, introduced, or brought ... government. The state of New York argued that the United States Constitution U.S. Constitution ... of New York held that necessity did not require the Lemmons travel to Texas via New York. Thus, the slaves were free according to New York state law. Paine relied on the English precedent set in Somersett s Case Somersett v. Stewart 1772 , where the Court of King s Bench declared that only positive ... territory became free. Mr. Lemmon then appealed to the New York Supreme Court, which affirmed Justice Paine in December 1857. Mr. Lemmon then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals the state s highest ... were free. ref name The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Library cite web ... of New York Library work accessdate ref See also Chester A. Arthur William M. Evarts References Reflist ...   more details



  1. New York v. Connecticut

    SCOTUSCase Litigants New York v. Connecticut OriginalJurisdiction yes DecideDate August 9 DecideYear 1799 FullName The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut, et al. USVol 4 USPage 1 Citation 4 Alexander J. Dallas statesman Dall. 1 1 L. Ed. 715 1799 U.S. LEXIS 243 Claim New York moved to enjoin ejectment proceedings pending in a U.S. Circuit Court involving land over which New York and Connecticut ... and Iredell New York v. Connecticut , Case citation 4 U.S. 1 1799 , was a lawsuit heard by the Supreme Court of the United States between the U.S. state State of New York against the State of Connecticut ..., 1802 . DEFAULTSORT New York V. Connecticut Category United States Supreme Court cases Category ... of New York was not a party to the ejectment action and had no interest at stake, because the Circuit ... Gore region was a strip of land on New York s western border with Pennsylvania . Connecticut ... is now known as the Old State House. ref After the State of New York granted certain parcels ... for the District of Connecticut . The defendants argued that they were residents of New York and that the land was actually in Steuben County, New York only state or federal courts in New York could ... . ref and New York subsequently filed a bill in Equity law equity against Connecticut and the Connecticut ... was filed by Josiah Ogden Hoffman , the Attorney General of New York . ref As part of the bill, New ... New York s rights to the land. Because the bill in equity was filed while the Connecticut General ... was not given for the injunction to be granted, and that regardless, New York lacked an interest ... rather than a single judge. However, the Court denied the injunction, finding that New York ... York v. Connecticut Full text of the Court s decision at Wikisource Further reading The Connecticut ... cases Category Legal history of New York Category Legal history of Connecticut Category 1799 in United States case law Category 1799 in Connecticut Category 1799 in New York ...   more details



  1. Patterson v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Patterson v. New York ArgueDate March 1 ArgueYear 1977 DecideDate June 17 DecideYear 1977 FullName Patterson v. New York USVol 432 USPage 197 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding Shifting the burden of proof to the Defendant of a mitigating circumstance affirmative defense does not violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. SCOTUS 1975 1981 Majority White JoinMajority Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Stevens Dissent Powell JoinDissent Brennan, Mashall NotParticipating Rehnquist LawsApplied Patterson v. New York , Case citation 432 U.S. 197 1977 , is a legal case heard by the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment s Due Process Clause of burdening a defendant with proving the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by New York law. Background After a brief and unstable marriage, the appellant, Gordon Patterson, Jr., became estranged from his wife, Roberta. Roberta resumed an association with John Northrup, a neighbor to whom she had been engaged prior to her marriage to appellant. On December 27, 1970, Patterson borrowed ... year 1978 month title The Constitutionality of Affirmative Defenses after Patterson v. New York ... T. V. authorlink coauthors year 1978 month title Burdens of Persuasion in Criminal Proceedings The Reasonable Doubt Standard after Patterson v. New York journal University of Florida Law Review volume ... case.html Patterson v. New York on Justia http www.oyez.org cases 1970 1979 1976 1976 75 1861 Oyez ... murder. In New York, there were two elements of this crime 1 intent to cause the death of another person ... is not an element of the crime. The State of New York allowed a person accused of murder to raise ... there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. The New York law required that the defendant in this and any ... jury found Patterson guilty for murder. On appeal, the New York Court of Appeals found the law and verdict ...   more details



  1. Hawker v. New York

    SCOTUSCase Litigants Hawker v. New York ArgueDate March 9 ArgueYear 1898 DecideDate April 18 DecideYear 1898 FullName Hawker v. People of State of New York Citation 18 S. Ct. 573 42 L. Ed. 1002 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1537 USVol 170 USPage 189 Prior Hawker convicted of unlawful practice of medicine Subsequent None Holding Laws may specify past acts and convictions as evidence of current qualification for a profession without being considered additional ex post facto punishment. SCOTUS 1898 1902 Majority Brewer JoinMajority Fuller, Gray, Brown, Shiras, White Dissent Harlan JoinDissent Peckham, McKenna LawsApplied New York state law Hawker v. New York , Case citation 170 U.S. 189 1898 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a New York state law preventing convicted felons from practicing medicine, even when the felony conviction occurred before the law was enacted. The case Dr. Hawker was convicted in 1878 of performing an illegal abortion. He served his time, and then resumed the practice of medicine. In 1893 and 1895, the legislature of the State of New York passed public health laws making it illegal for convicted felons to practice medicine. Dr. Hawker was convicted under this law in 1896, but contended that the law passed after his conviction was putting an additional penalty on him, contrary to the protection from ex post facto laws in Section 10 of Article One of the United States Constitution . Majority opinion Justice Brewer s opinion cites Dent v. West Virginia and other cases which held that states may add new qualifications for practicing medicine that apply to those already in practice. It also cites Jones v. Brim ussc 165 180 1897 which held that the states have a right to classify individuals for application of laws and also Alabama and California ... law Category United States Supreme Court cases Category Medical regulation Category History of New York Category 1898 in New York ...   more details



  1. New York v. Onofre

    Image Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg right 200px The People v. Ronald Onofre , 51 N.Y.2d 476, 415 N.E.2d 936, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947 1980 , was an appeal against New York s sodomy laws, decided in the New York Court of Appeals . ref http 174.123.24.242 leagle xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc 198052751NY2d476 1481.xml&docbase CSLWAR1 1950 1985 People v. Onofre , 51 N.Y.2d 476, 434 N.Y.S.2d 947, 415 N.E.2d 936 1980 , cert. denied sub nom, 451 U.S. 987 1981 . ref Brief summary In People v. Ronald Onofre , et ... cases Stanley v. Georgia Griswold v. Connecticut References and Citations reflist LGBT in New York Category New York state case law Category 1981 in United States case law Category 1981 in New York ... the constitutionality of a 1965 law, New York Penal Law 130.38, which made it a misdemeanor to engage ... person. ref New York Penal Law 130.38 1965 . See also N.Y. Legis. Ann., 1965, pp. 51 52. ref Appellants Ronald Onofre was convicted for violating New York Penal Law that made it a misdemeanor to engage ... feelings of distaste for the conduct sought to be proscribed by New York Penal Law 130.38 and even ... year old male lover in his home. ref People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 1980 . See also Sexuality, Gender ... in oral sex in an automobile parked in downtown Buffalo. . ref People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d ... for having oral sex with a man in a parked truck, also in Buffalo. . ref People v. Onofre, 51 .... . ref People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 1980 . See also Sexuality, Gender, and the Law Abridged ... Press, pgs. 54 57. ref Influences by Other Cases The Court ruled that on the basis of Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U.S. 479 1965 and Stanley v. Georgia , the above sexual actions, when consensual, should ... v. Wade . . ref People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 1980 . ref The Court also relied on Stanley , a case ... within the privacy of the defendant s home. ref People v. Onofre, 51 N.Y.2d 476 1980 citing Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557. ref The Onofre Court stated, In light of these decisions, protecting ...   more details



  1. Payton v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Payton v. New York ArgueDate March 26 ArgueYear 1979 ReargueDate October 9 ReargueYear 1979 DecideDate April 15 DecideYear 1980 FullName Theodore Payton v. New York USVol 445 USPage 573 Citation 445 U.S. 573 Prior Subsequent Holding The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect s home in order to make a routine felony arrest. SCOTUS 1975 1981 Majority Stevens JoinMajority Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell Concurrence Blackmun Dissent White JoinDissent Burger, Rehnquist Dissent2 Rehnquist LawsApplied Payton v. New York , ussc 445 573 1980 was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case concerning Warrant law warrantless entry into a private home in order to make a felony arrest . The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not be reasonably crossed without a warrant. The court, however, did specify that an arrest warrant as opposed to a search warrant would have sufficed for entry into the suspect s residence if there had been reason to believe that the suspect was within the home. Payton and related case law establish that the principle that a person in a home, particularly his or her ... J. M. authorlink coauthors year 1980 month title Payton v. New York The Last Word on Warrantless Home ... links Wikisource Payton v. New York caselaw source case Payton v. New York , 445 U.S. 573 1980 findlaw ... States Constitution Fourth Amendment not afforded to persons in automobiles, as per Whren v. United States , or to persons in public, as per United States v. Watson . See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 445 Miller v. United States , ussc 357 301 1958 Ker v. California , ussc ...   more details



  1. Santobello v. New York

    Unreferenced date July 2010 Santobello v. New York , ussc 404 257 1971 , was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the sentence of the defendant should be vacated because the plea agreement specified that the prosecutor would not recommend a sentence, but the prosecutor breached the agreement by recommending the maximum sentence. Category United States plea bargaining case law Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States criminal due process case law ...   more details



  1. Ginsberg v. New York

    involving the First Amendment External links Wikisource Ginsberg v. New York caselaw source case Ginsberg v. New York , 390 U.S. 629 1968 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?navby ... that New York had deprived minors of their liberty. The court found that it was well within the state ... deprivation of liberty. He cited Meyer v. Nebraska , Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Prince v. Massachusetts . All where the court sided with the minors. Opinion of the Court ...   more details



  1. Hernandez v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Hernandez v. New York ArgueDate February 25 ArgueYear 1991 DecideDate May 28 DecideYear 1991 FullName Hernandez v. New York USVol 500 USPage 352 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding A prosecutor s peremptory challenges of Spanish speaking Latino jurors based on his doubts about the ability of such jurors to defer to the official translation of Spanish language testimony did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. SCOTUS 1990 1991 Plurality Kennedy JoinPlurality Rehnquist, White, Souter Concurrence O Connor JoinConcurrence Scalia Dissent Blackmun Dissent2 Stevens JoinDissent2 Marshall LawsApplied Hernandez v. New York , Case citation 500 U.S. 352 1991 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court , which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish language Spanish and English language English from juries that will consider Spanish language testimony. Peremptory challenge s are used to remove jurors thought to be undesirable for virtually any reason by either side in a court case. However, in Batson v. Kentucky 1986 , the Supreme Court ruled that peremptory challenges may not be used to remove jurors because of their race. In Hernandez , the Supreme Court had to decide whether the peremptory exclusion of two Hispanic jurors was tantamount to exclusion because of race&mdash and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution . wikisource Hernandez v. New York See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 500 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court Hernandez v. Texas 1954 Further reading cite book chapter The New American Spanish War How the Courts and the Legislatures Are Aiding the Supression of Languages Other Than English title Language Ideologies ... isbn 0805840540 pages 121&ndash 139 cite book chapter Hernandez v. New York 1991 and the exclusion ...   more details



  1. Kunz v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Kunz v. New York ArgueDate October 17 ArgueYear 1950 DecideDate January 15 DecideYear 1951 FullName Kunz v. New York USVol 340 USPage 290 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Vinson JoinMajority Reed, Douglas, Burton, Clark, Minton Concurrence Black Concurrence2 Frankfurter Dissent Jackson LawsApplied wikisource Kunz v. New York , Case citation 340 U.S. 290 1951 , was a United States Supreme Court case finding a requirement mandating a permit to speak on religious issues in public was unconstitutional. It was argued October 17, 1950, and decided January 15, 1951, by vote of 8 to 1. Fred M. Vinson Chief Justice Vinson delivered the opinion for the Court. Hugo Black Justice Black and Felix Frankfurter Justice Frankfurter concurred in the result only. Robert H. Jackson Justice Jackson dissented. Kunz helped establish that government restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored so that they do not inappropriately limit expression protected by the First Amendment. In Kunz, the Court held that laws giving public officials broad discretion to restrain speech about religious issues in advance are an invalid prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution First Amendment . The Court reversed the 1948 conviction of Baptist minister Carl J. Kunz for violating a New York City Local ordinance ordinance that prohibited religious services on public streets without a permit from the police commissioner. Although the ordinance specified no grounds for refusing permission to speak, Kunz was denied permits in 1947 and 1948 after he was accused of scurrilous attacks on Catholics and Jews under a previous ... of Special Sessions and by the New York Court of Appeals . The Supreme Court said that New York ... Speech . He also criticized the Court for striking down the permit scheme when it had, in Feiner v. New York 1951 , allowed local officials the discretion to arrest volatile speakers during their presentations ...   more details



  1. Gitlow v. New York

    SCOTUSCase Litigants Gitlow v. New York ArgueDate April 12 ArgueYear 1923 ReargueDate November 23 ReargueYear 1923 DecideDate June 8 DecideYear 1925 FullName Benjamin Gitlow v. People of the State of New York USVol 268 USPage 652 Citation 45 S. Ct. 625 69 L. Ed. 1138 1925 U.S. LEXIS 598 Prior Defendant convicted, Supreme Court of New York County, 2 5 20 affirmed, 195 A.D. 773 N.Y. Sup.Ct.App.Div. 1921 ... XIV N.Y. Penal Law 160, 161 Gitlow v. New York , ussc 268 652 1925 , was a decision by the United ... enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Gitlow v. New York s partial reversal of that precedent began ... law challenged in Gitlow v. New York, which made it a crime to advocate the duty, need, or appropriateness ... specific rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gitlow v. New York ... courtesy of Findlaw.com http www.firstamendmentcenter.org faclibrary case.aspx?case Gitlow v NY First Amendment Library entry for Gitlow v. New York http www.law.umkc.edu faculty projects ftrials conlaw clear&pdanger.htm Exploring Constitutional Conflicts Clear and Present Danger s Gitlow v. New York Full text of the opinion at Wikisource http library.thinkquest.org 2760 gitlow.htm US1stAmendment speech state expanded DEFAULTSORT Gitlow V. New York Category 1925 in United States case law Category ... states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York s criminal ... college outline series Constitution of the United States. 13th ed. . New York HarperCollins. ISBN ..., in Barron v. Baltimore , 32 U.S. 243 1833 , that the Constitution s United States Bill of Rights Bill ... cases, such as De Jonge v. Oregon , 299 U.S. 353 1937 , Wolf v. Colorado , 338 U.S. 25 1949 , and Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 1963 , to extend the reach of the Bill of Rights. Constitutional ... to define more clearly the clear and present danger test that came out of Schenck v. United ... the bad tendency legal bad tendency test that came out from Abrams v. United States , 250 U.S. ...   more details



  1. Saia v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Saia v. People of the State of New York ArgueDate March 30 ArgueYear 1948 DecideDate June 4 DecideYear 1948 FullName Saia v. People of the State of New York USVol 334 USPage 558 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding New York s law prohibiting the use of sound amplification devices without consent from the chief of police is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. SCOTUS 1946 1949 Majority Douglas JoinMajority Black, Murphy, Vinson, Rutledge Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Frankfurter JoinDissent Reed, Burton Dissent2 Jackson JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Amendment I wikisource Saia v. New York , Case citation 334 U.S. 558 1948 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance which prohibited the use of sound amplification devices except with permission of the Chief of Police was unconstitutional on its face because it established a previous restraint on the right of free speech in violation of the First Amendment. Facts of the case Saia, a minister of the Jehovah s Witnesses , obtained from the Chief of Police permission to use sound equipment, mounted atop his car, to amplify lectures on religious subjects. The lectures were given at a fixed place in a public park on designated Sundays. When this permit expired, he applied for another one but was refused on the ground that complaints had been made. Saia nevertheless used his equipment as planned on four occasions, but without a permit. Prior history Saia was tried in Police Court for violations of the ordinance. It was undisputed that he used his equipment to amplify speeches in the park ... were affirmed without opinion by the County Court for Niagara County and by the New York Court ... delivered the opinion of the Court. References references DEFAULTSORT Saia V. People Of The State Of New York Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States Free Speech Clause case ...   more details



  1. Berger v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Berger v. New York ArgueDate April 13 ArgueYear 1967 DecideDate June 12 DecideYear 1967 FullName Ralph Berger v. State of New York USVol 388 USPage 41 Citation 87 S.Ct. 1873, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 Prior Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York Subsequent Holding The Court facially invalidated a New York statute N.Y. Code of Crim. Proc. 813 a which allowed for electronic eavesdropping without the procedural safeguards required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment . SCOTUS 1965 1967 Majority Clark JoinMajority Warren, Brennan, Fortas Concurrence Douglas Concurrence2 Stewart Dissent Black Dissent2 Harlan Dissent3 White NotParticipating LawsApplied Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. amend. IV wikisource Berger v. New York , 388 U.S. 41 1967 was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Fourth Amendment , because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards. Case Under New York Code of Criminal Procedure 813 a, police obtained an ex parte order to Covert listening device bug the office of Lawyer attorney Ralph Berger. Based on evidence obtained by the surveillance , Berger was convicted of conspiracy to bribe a public official. The statute allowed electronic eavesdropping for up to two months upon a standard of a reasonable ground to believe that evidence of a crime may be thus obtained. Further two month extensions of the original order could be granted if investigators made a showing that such surveillance would be in the public interest. The statute required ... case law Category 1967 in United States case law Category Legal history of New York Category 1967 in New York ... predates by several months the more famous case of Katz v. United States , which extended Fourth ...   more details



  1. Feiner v. New York

    SCOTUSCase Litigants Feiner v. New York ArgueDate October 17 ArgueYear 1950 DecideDate January 15 DecideYear 1951 FullName Irving Feiner v. New York USVol 340 USPage 315 Citation 71 S. Ct. 303 95 L. Ed. 295 1951 U.S. LEXIS 2249 Prior 300 N. Y. 391, 91 N. E. 2d 316 certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York Subsequent Holding The conviction is sustained against a claim that it violated petitioner s right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. SCOTUS 1949 1953 Majority Vinson ... , Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution XIV wikisource Feiner v. New York , 340 US ... and white people at the corner of South McBride and Harrison Streets in Syracuse, New York . Feiner, a college student, ref Feiner v. New York , 340 U.S. 315, 322 ref had been standing on a large ... him, and he was convicted of violating 722 of the Penal Code of New York, which, in effect, forbids incitement of a breach of the peace. ref Feiner v. New York , 340 U.S. 315, 317 318 ref ... Heckler s veto List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 340 Kunz v. New York , ussc 340 290 ... faclibrary case.aspx?case Feiner v NY First Amendment Center US1stAmendment speech state expanded DEFAULTSORT Feiner V. New York Category 1951 in United States case law Category ... Irving Feiner s arrest for a violation of section 722 of the New York Penal Code, inciting a breach ... views, but must be used to silence a speaker who is trying to incite a riot. New York won, the Chief ... because the police wanted to protect the city government and the people of New York. The dissent Justice ... them with a garden hose. Citation needed date January 2009 Irving Feiner lived in Nyack, New York ... 2009 work The New York Times ref Lectures at Rutgers University At the invitation of renowned ... of Professor Heumann s Civil Liberties class at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Those ... after V E day he was in Paris where he saw a V E parade in which marchers marched with locked ...   more details



  1. New York v. Belton

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants New York v. Belton ArgueDate April 27 ArgueYear 1981 DecideDate July 1 DecideYear 1981 FullName New York v. Roger Belton USVol 453 USPage 454 Citation 101 S.Ct. 2860 69 L.Ed.2d 768 Prior Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York Subsequent Holding When a police officer has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, the officer may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile. SCOTUS 1975 ... Brennan Dissent2 White JoinDissent2 Marshall LawsApplied In New York v. Belton , Case citation 453 U.S. ... title Privacy Rights v. Law Enforcement Difficulties The Clash of Competing Interests in New York v ... last Schultz first M. D. authorlink coauthors year 1982 month title New York v. Belton A Man s Car ... year 1987 month title When Bright Lines Break down Limiting New York v. Belton journal University ... to eliminate some confusion in the cases. Background A New York State Police Trooper police rank ... reading cite journal last Forcucci first G. D. authorlink coauthors year 1981 month title New York v. Belton The Scope of Warrantless Searches Extended journal Pepperdine Law Review volume 9 issue pages ... Chimel rule of searches incident to a lawful arrest , established in Chimel v. California 1969 ... apart. He searched the passenger compartment and found cocaine in a pocket of Belton s coat. The New York Court of Appeals suppressed the search because there no longer was any danger of destruction of evidence ... his reach. United States v. Robinson , supra Draper v. United States , 358 U.S. 307 . Such a container ... could be searched because of the danger their contents might pose to the police. Chimel v. California ... issn 0041 9915 url ref Belton has been distinguished by Arizona v. Gant , which restricted searches ... evidence of the offense that led to the arrest. ref name Arizona v. Gant cite web url http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 08pdf 07 542.pdf title Arizona v. Gant Argued October 7, 2008 Decided April 21 ...   more details



  1. New York v. Ferber

    SCOTUSCase Litigants New York v. Ferber ArgueDate April 27 ArgueYear 1982 DecideDate July 2 DecideYear 1982 FullName New York, Petitioner v. Paul Ira Ferber USVol 458 USPage 747 Citation 102 S. Ct. 3348 73 L. Ed. 2d 1113 1982 U.S. LEXIS 12 50 U.S.L.W. 5077 8 Media L. Rep. 1809 Prior Defendant convicted at trial conviction upheld by Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. 74 App. Div. 2d 558, 424 N. Y. S. 2d 967 1980 reversed by New York Court of Appeals , 52 N. Y. 2d, at 681, 422 N. E. 2d certiorari granted, 452 U.S. 1052 Subsequent Conviction affirmed Holding State interest in protecting children allows laws prohibiting distribution of images of sexual performances by minors even where content does not meet tests of obscenity. SCOTUS 1981 1986 Majority White JoinMajority Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, O Connor Concurrence O Connor Concurrence2 Brennan JoinConcurrence2 Marshall ... U.S. Const. amend. I New York v. Ferber , ussc 458 747 1982 , was a Supreme Court of the United ... Pornography Ban the Speech and Spare the Child&mdash New York v. Ferber journal DePaul Law Review .... authorlink coauthors year 1984 month title Child Pornography and the Initial Impact of New York v. Ferber ... links caselaw source case New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747 1982 findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... expanded DEFAULTSORT New York V. Ferber Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United ... films depicting boys masturbating. He was charged with violating a New York law that forbade the sale ..., and the conviction was affirmed by the intermediate appellate court. The New York Court of Appeals ... of New York asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Court s opinion For a long time before ... date 2002 04 17 work publisher New York Times ref Distribution of visual depictions of children ... the Court s previous decision in Miller v. California , ussc 413 15 1973 , material is obscene ... Stanley v. Georgia , ussc 394 557 1969 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , ussc 535 234 2002 , distinguishing ...   more details



  1. Redrup v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Redrup v. New York ArgueDateA October 10 ArgueDateB 11 ArgueYear 1966 DecideDate May 8 DecideYear 1967 FullName Robert Redrup, Petitioners v. State of New York William L. Austin, Petitioner v. State of Kentucky Gent magazine Gent , et al., Appellants v. State of Arkansas USVol 386 USPage 767 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding Written materials that were not sold to minors, or foisted on unwilling audiences were constitutionally protected. SCOTUS 1965 1967 Majority Per curiam JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied wikisource Redrup v. New York , ussc 386 767 1967 was a May 8, 1967 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States , widely regarded as the end of United States American censorship of written fiction. Robert Redrup was a Times Square newsstand clerk who sold two of William Hamling publisher William Hamling s Greenleaf Classics paperback Pulp magazine pulp erotica sex novels , Lust Pool and Shame Agent , to a plainclothes police officer. He was tried and convicted in 1965. With financial backing from Hamling, Redrup appealed his case to the Supreme Court where his conviction was overturned by 7 2. The court s final ruling affirmed that written materials that were neither sold to minors nor foisted on unwilling audiences were constitutionally protected, thereby de facto ending American censorship of written material. After this decision, the Supreme Court systematically and summarily reversed, without further opinion, scores of obscenity rulings involving paperback sex books. See also Portal Freedom of speech List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 386 List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment Roth v. United States , ussc 354 476 1957 Miller v. California , ussc 413 15 1973 Further reading cite journal ...   more details



  1. Spano v. New York

    Orphan date December 2010 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Spano v. New York ArgueDate April 27 ArgueYear 1959 DecideDate June 22 DecideYear 1959 FullName Spano v. New York USVol 360 USPage 315 Citation Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 1959 . Prior Subsequent Holding The Court held that the interrogation violated Spano s 14th Amendment due process rights because Spano s confession was not voluntary. SCOTUS 1958 1962 Majority Warren JoinMajority Concurrence Douglas JoinConcurrence Black, Brennan Concurrence2 Stewart JoinConcurrence2 Douglas, Brennan Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Spano v. New York , 360 U.S. 315 1959 represented the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court s movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in Miranda v. Arizona . In Spano , the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel. Prior History Empty section date July 2010 Case Spano was a 25 year old immigrant with a junior high school education. He shot a person after a bar fight. He fled the crime scene and was indicted for murder while he was in hiding. Spano called Gaspar Bruno, a close friend of his training to become a police officer. Spano told Bruno that the deceased had injured him, and that he intended to get a lawyer and turn himself in to law enforcement. Bruno relayed the information to his superiors. Spano, along with his newly appointed attorney, turned himself in the day following his conversation with Bruno. Spano was questioned continuously for several hours and was told he could not consult with his attorney ... DEFAULTSORT Spano V. New York Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1959 in United ... v. Arizona . Even though the majority opinion used the traditional voluntariness analysis ...   more details



  1. Street v. New York

    Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Street v. New York ArgueDate October 21 ArgueYear 1968 DecideDate April 21 DecideYear 1969 FullName Sidney Street v. State of New York USVol 394 USPage 576 CitationNew 394 U.S. 576, 89 S.Ct. 1354, 22 L.Ed.2d 572 1969 Prior conviction in Criminal Court of New York, affirmed ... In Street v. New York , Case citation 394 U.S. 576 1969 , the Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court held that a New York state law making it a crime publicly to mutilate ... States ref Street v. New York , 394 U.S. 576, 578 1969 quoting the New York Penal Law, 1425 ... Bailey, supra . ref Relying on New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman , 278 U.S. 63, 67 1928 , cf. People v. McLucas , 15 N.Y.2d 167, 172, 204 N.E.2d 846, 848 1965 , the Supreme Court held that it did in fact ... source case Street v. New York findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?navby CASE&court ... government. See Twining v. New Jersey , 211 U.S. 78, 92 1908 . ref Facts and procedural ... by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division intermediate appellate court and by the New York ... the conviction. Thus, the case was remanded to the state courts of New York for further proceedings ... Court of Appeals, upholding the New York statute which this Court now holds unconstitutional as applied. . ref 394 U.S. at 609 ref The New York law prohibited the burning of the U.S. flag, and the State ... were, in Black s view, irrelevant. If the New York law in fact prohibited words against ... see Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman . Background The http frwebgate.access.gpo.gov cgi .... ref See, e.g., Members of the City Council of the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent .... XIV see, e.g., Edwards v. South Carolina , 372 U.S. 229, 235 1963 Near v. Minnesota , 283 U.S. 697, 707 1931 Stromberg v. California , 283 U.S. 359, 368 1931 . ref ref Prior to the passage of the Fourteenth ... raised in state court. ref See Bailey v. Anderson , 326 U.S. 203, 206 207 1945 . ref Given that the defendant ...   more details



  1. Nebbia v. New York

    SCOTUSCase Litigants Nebbia v. New York ArgueDateA December 4 ArgueDateB 5 ArgueYear 1933 DecideDate March 5 DecideYear 1934 FullName Nebbia v. People of State of New York USVol 291 USPage 502 Citation 54 S. Ct. 505 78 L. Ed. 940 1934 U.S. LEXIS 962 89 A.L.R. 1469 Prior Appeal from the County Court of Monroe County, New York Subsequent None Holding In absence of other constitutional prohibitions, the due process clause does not prohibit a state from enacting economic policies to further the public good, so long as the policy is not unreasonable or arbitrary. SCOTUS 1932 1937 Majority Roberts JoinMajority Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Cardozo Dissent McReynolds JoinDissent Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler LawsApplied Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. amend. XIV Nebbia v. New York , Case citation 291 U.S. 502 1934 , ref citation was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate set and or otherwise control the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers. History New York State dairy farmers were disproportionately affected by farm prices decline after World War I , and the Great Depression further exacerbated the problems they faced. To address this problem, the New York legislature created a joint legislative committee headed by State Senator Perley A. Pitcher to devise a remedy. ref Henry S. Manley, Nebbia Plus Fifteen , 13 Albany Law Review 11 1949 , at 12. ref Following the hearings, in 1933, the state of New York established a Milk Control Board that was empowered to set Price ceiling maximum and Price floor minimum retail prices. The Board set the price of a quart of milk ..., dictation. ref Id. at 554. ref Notes reflist External links wikisource inline Nebbia v. New York ... sought to be attained. ref Id. at 525. ref Roberts noted also that the New York milk industry had ... of New Deal regulation. McReynolds provided a lengthy discussion of the history and application ...   more details



  1. Cruz v. New York

    SCOTUSCase Litigants Cruz v. New York ArgueDate December 1 ArgueYear 1986 DecideDate April 21 DecideYear 1987 FullName Eulogio Cruz v. New York USVol 481 USPage 186 Citation 107 S.Ct. 1714 95 L.Ed.2d 162, 55 USLW 4515 1986 WL 728116 Prior Demurrer overruled, New York Court of Appeals N.Y. Subsequent Holding The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars the admission, in a joint trial, of a nontestifying codefendant s confession incriminating the defendant, even if the defendant s own confession is admitted against him. SCOTUS 1986 1987 Majority Scalia JoinMajority Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun Dissent White, Rehnquist, Powell, O Connor LawsApplied Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. amend. VI Cruz v. New York , ussc 481 186 1986 , was an important Supreme ... the scene. He recovered no firearms or spent shells. ref name Cruz Cruz v. New York , 481 U.S. 186 1986 ... Cases Richardson v. Marsh and Cruz v. New York. Cornell Law Review 1989 , 74 712 715. Brian Spitser. The Case for the Retroactive Application of Crawford v. Washington. Brooklyn Law Review 2006 , 71 1631 1632. External links caselaw source case Cruz v. New York , 481 U.S. 186 1987 findlaw http ... to a radio report of an incident at the Gaseteria service station in Bronx County, New York. Upon ... jury sitting in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, indicted Eulogio and Benjamin Cruz for felony .... He appealed, but the New York Court Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the lower court ... v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, which was denied. At the trial, there were no eyewitnesses. The only ... v. United States , 391 U.S. 123, 1968, in laying out the question presented in the instant case. In Bruton ... be ignored. ref Bruton v. United States , 391 U.S. 123 1968 . ref Fearing that juries would find it impossible ... issue where each defendant had made his own confession. ref Parker v. Randolph , 442 U.S. ... Garcia. The Winding Path of Bruton v. United States A Case of Doctrinal Inconsistency. American ...   more details



  1. Pennsylvania v. New York

    Pennsylvania v. New York , were two cases which were heard in 1972 before the U.S. Supreme Court. The initial filing was allowed at case citation 407 U.S. 206 and the final decision was ordered at 407 U.S. 223 1972 . When two states have a controversy between each other, the case is filed for original jurisdiction with the United States Supreme Court . This is one of the very limited circumstances where the court acts as original jurisdiction, e.g. a trial court. In all other cases the court acts as the highest level appellate court in the United States. In this case, Western Union had issued money order s that were either never redeemed or erroneously underpaid e.g. a money order for 500 paid as 300 , and enough time had passed that the value of the money orders was considered unclaimed property . In such a case, unclaimed money order escheat s to the state. The question of the case was, which state should get the money, the state where the money order was purchased, or the state where Western Union was incorporated? As is the practice in original jurisdiction cases, the Supreme Court had a special master hear the case and make a decision. The final decision ruled that when Western Union does not know who the purchaser or the person who redeemed it is and a money order is never redeemed, the money escheats to the state where Western Union is incorporated, e.g. New York. Where Western Union does know who the purchaser or redeemer is, and a money order is never redeemed or is underreedemed, the remaining money escheats to the state where that purchaser resides, subject to that state s rules for escheat of unclaimed money or property. The Special Master decided to rely on the logic of the previous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. New Jersey , ussc 379 674 1961 . The court approved the decision of the Special Master . See also List of United States Supreme Court ... Category 1972 in New York SCOTUS stub ...   more details



  1. Dunaway v. New York

    Dunaway v. New York , 442 U.S. 200 1979 , is a U.S. Supreme Court case that concerned the appropriate methods for law enforcement officers to elicit the voluntary cooperation of a person of interest where the present state of evidence may fall short of probable cause for arrest . A Dunaway warning may take a form similar to the following Mr. Smith, we d like for you to come with us in our car to the precinct house to discuss what happened here today. You re not under arrest, and you don t have to come with us if you don t want to. You re free to walk away from here at this time without saying anything more if you wish to do so. The idea is to protect the officer from allegations of false arrest. NB if the person chooses to leave the area, the officer will note this election in his investigative documentation of the incident. If when the case later develops to a point where the person can be brought in for questioning, the matter of the person s leaving the area will be among the topics covered and rather thoroughly in the subsequent interrogation. Category United States Supreme Court cases Category 1979 in United States case law Category United States criminal investigation case law ...   more details




Articles 1 - 25 of 1457810          Next


Search   in  
Search for Lochner v New York in Tutorials
Search for Lochner v New York in Encyclopedia
Search for Lochner v New York in Videos
Search for Lochner v New York in Books
Search for Lochner v New York in Software
Search for Lochner v New York in DVDs
Search for Lochner v New York in Store


Advertisement




Lochner v New York in Encyclopedia
Lochner v New York top Lochner v New York
Home - Add TutorGig to Your Site - Disclaimer

©2011-2013 TutorGig.info All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement