American famous case | Pro Laywers

Edwards to ban the teaching of evolution

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1987)

Summary: Louisiana state law, in the public school education should treat creationism and evolution of equality. Creationism banned in public schools teaching of evolution and creationism, unless the professor. Although no schools are required to teach evolution and the founding of a professor, but once a door, a door must also be taught to. The law will define the theory of evolution and creationism as "scientific evidence and inferences drawn by scientific evidence"

The court of first instance: prosecutors, including access to public school children's parents, teachers in Louisiana, and religious leaders, the legitimacy of the law questioned. To the court ruled that creation science is due to ban the teaching of evolution and for promoting a particular religious doctrine to the founding of law teaching, the religion clauses. The court of appeal upheld.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court agrees with the decision.

The Virginia Military Institute rejected girls case

A brief introduction of the case

Summary: the Virginia Military Institute was founded in 1839, is now a school only for boys, belonging to one of Virginia's 15 public high schools. The VMI task Ishi training soldiers citizens, some can be used as a leader of citizens can be warrior. VMI through extensive training to achieve the purpose, but these training elsewhere in the state of Virginia is not likely to have. It uses the negative principle, gradually from the body and spirit to discipline and strict moral standard instilled in his school. Although Virginia's soldiers citizenship program from its long-term goal or the practical implementation point of view are not born not suitable for women, and the school is willing to admit an opportunity for some women, but Virginia still choose VMI education rights and opportunities to all men.

A trial court decision: in 1990, a want to apply for VMI high school girls to sue VMI, America federal government also think, VMI only recruit male admissions policy violated the equal protection clause. The district court's decision MVI does not violate the constitution. But the appeals court overturned the district court's decision, and to state your choice: VMI allows women to the entrance, a similar research and training projects; or VMI give up state aid, as private institutions like the freedom to decide admission policy. Virginia therefore set up a specially for women's organizations, Virginia women's leadership training institute. This is a period of four years, the province of government funded university education project, located in the Malibo Devin University -- a private women's School of the arts. Women Leaders Training Institute is mainly for 25 to 30 years old students. Although VWIM and VMI purpose, aiming to cultivate citizen soldiers, but both in teaching contents, methods and sources of funding are different. But the district court judge this project accords with the equal protection clause, the court of appeal the verdict partition.

The final judgment: the plaintiff's appeal, the Supreme Court of final appeal that VWIM cannot replace VMI, reversed the district court and the court of appeal decision.

Gladys refused to pay the legal fees

America (the Supreme court,1971)

Summary: in this case, living in the Kangnai Dick delta prosecution to the Federal District Court condi Nike state court, accused Kangnai of Dick delta procedural law, especially the court proceedings in court to collect fees and service charges regulations. These people rely on government welfare to maintain life, they claim that the aim of prosecution is to defend themselves and other people and their interests in similar situation, because these costs make it hard for them to enter the court, filed for divorce.

According to the complaint: divorce proceedings spending an average of $60. Kangdi Naik, specified in paragraph 52259th: Basic Law of civil procedure should pay $45 to the Supreme Court or the high court staff. Plus $15 service fee if the police officer must be the public summons words, have to pay another 40 published or $50 fee.

The prosecution of people unable to pay the court costs, also unable to pay the litigation fee. They said in an affidavit, relief can only meet the daily life consumption, no extra money to pay the divorce litigation fee. Moreover, their divorce request is also very good. The result is poor, because these people but not in Kangnai Dick delta file for divorce. The high court staff because did not receive legal fees and returned to their pleadings.

Judgement of first instance: prosecution therefore filed a lawsuit in federal district court, requesting the court to Kangnai Dick seized court fees and service charges in violation of the constitution, can't take this provision in poor plaintiffs and their similar status person. They also asked the court to issue an injunction, prohibition of the court to their collection costs, allowing them to put forward a divorce free. In July 16, 1968, the three judge court ruling as follows: allow the state to sue people to pay legal fees or other costs, because it can effectively restrict certain people to civil court, especially the divorce court.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court overturned the trial court decision. The reason is: give the society exists in marriage hierarchy, as well as the monopoly of subsequent legal way, procedure justice law prohibiting states only because of inability to pay and deprived some people asked for a divorce to the court right.

OBrien burned the compulsory military service certificate

American (the Supreme Court, 1968)

Summary: the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul OBrien and three companions burned their compulsory military service certificates in the north of Boston court door. A lot of people, including several FBI officials witnessed the whole event. Later, OBrien immediately declared that he burned the certificate to the belief, and that his actions in violation of federal law. OBrien guilty, he told the jury of Chen Shudao, he publicly burned certificate is to promote the anti war ideas to others, so that other people can re evaluation of the compulsory military service, re evaluation of the army and its role in the modern society, also prompted me to reconsider their position.

First instance judgment: the charges against Obrien are "deliberately destroyed and burned his registration certificate, in violation of the unified military training and compulsory military service regulations," the regulations by Congress in 1965 to modify, so OBrien burned the certificate can be proved guilty, because any people forge. Change, a bad, or in any way to change the certificate and behavior of an offence but the court of Appeal held that the amendment Congress in 1965 to limit the freedom of speech, not in conformity with the constitution. The reason is the formulation of the amendment, compulsory military service departments have already formulated regulations, required to register their registration certificates remain forever, the regulations of the intentional violation is considered a crime. The appeal court said, the 1965 amendments should be punished behavior in the compulsory military service sector regulations have been banned, therefore, the purpose of the amendment is invalid; and, according to the provisions of the previous, amendment Congress in 1965 must be destructive behavior rather than individual and mass. Based on this, determine the amendment Congress in 1965 and the first amendment to the Constitution does not match. The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court of final appeal overturned the judgment of the court of appeals, think 1965 amendment regardless of formulation and implementation are constitutional.

Ba Jia card Ji'an with huge cash abroad held case

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1998)

Summary: in July 9, 1994, the defendant and his wife and two daughters waiting to board a flight to Italy in the Los Angeles International Airport; their ultimate goal is cyprus. When the Customs police dogs in Ba Jia card Ji'an has passed the security found in the luggage230000 dollars in cash. A people's Procuratorate entered the defendant and his wife, asking them to cash in excess of $10000 to declare their checked baggage and parcel carry number. The accused said he got $8000, his wife had 7000 dollars, in addition to the family in no return excess cash. A customs officer for baggage and parcel of their search, found $357144 in cash. The cash was seized, the defendant also be fetters.

Court trial, the district court that this $357144 is forfeit, because of its alleged illegal. The court found the money and other crimes. They are independent, the defendant to pay a debt. The court found the defendant not declare these to be shipped American money because of cultural differences bring fear: as a growing up in Syria, Asian American Leah American minority, the defendant does not trust to the government.

The trial verdict: Although the court may confiscate all the cash, but the District Court concluded that such extreme ruthless confiscation, disproportionate violations and the defendant, and also for the excessive fines clause. Therefore the court confiscated $1500 in cash, sentenced to probation and fined $5000 for three years -- the highest penalties as defined in the guidelines -- because the court held that the maximum penalty is too little, so the $15000 no collection can be used as a remedy to a reasonable number.

USA government appeal, request a full forfeiture of cash carrying on the defendant. The appeal court upheld the original verdict.

Final decision: to maintain the judgment of the court of appeals.

Brogan misrepresentation of crime

American (the Supreme Court, 1998)

Summary: from 1987 to 1988, the plaintiff James Brogan -- any union official position. In the meantime, he received a cash payment from JRD real estate management company. The management staff union dispatched by. In October 4, 1993, were investigated USA labor department and IRS officials to appeal people. Officials bright Ming identity and explained that, in their investigation of JRD and relevant personnel, hope people with complaints. They told the people that, if they are willing to cooperate for a long time, should ask a lawyer. If he can not afford a lawyer, can arrange for him to a.

Later, officials asked the complainant is willing to answer some of the questions, the complaint said they would. He served as a trade union official, is the first question is from JRD received any cash or gifts. The complainant said no. However, subsequent investigations on JRD headquarters is revealed and the complainant to answer the opposite conclusion. They also told the complainant, during the investigation of federal officials to lie a crime. The plaintiff did not change his answer. Shortly after asking.

A trial court decision: the complainant accused of illegally accepting cash and employers to federal officials made false statements. America District Court for the Southern District of New York court of appeal and several co defendants guilty. America Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the court second.

Final decision: to maintain the court of appeal

In the case of Iran Daimler seizure of property

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1981)

Summary: November 4, 1979, Tehran USA embassy was attacked, embassy officials all captured as a hostage. In order to deal with the crisis, USA President Carter according to the international emergency economic sanctions regulations, in November 14, 1979 declared a state of emergency, and the freezing of all the Iran government and institutional assets, under the jurisdiction of the Central Bank of Iran America assets have been frozen. In November 15, 1979, the Treasury Office of foreign assets control regulations promulgated regulations,: since November 14, 1979, without approval or authorization, any country of Iran property seizure, judgment, decree, execution and other judicial process are invalid.

A trial court decision: in December 19, 1979, the prosecutor dames & Moore company in America district court to the Iran government, the atomic energy organization of Iran and some of the banks in Iran filed a lawsuit. Said his company Daimler Moore, SRL international company and the atomic energy organization of Iran signed a written contract, the contract rights is the parent company. The contract in the injunction before identification, according to the terms of the contract, plus interest and fees owed to the plaintiff, the defendant is $3436694.30. The District Court issued a warrant for the defendant's property seizure.

In January 20, 1981, according to the executive agreement, Iran released the hostages USA captured. The agreement that the two countries agreement: German Shepherd is to end all litigation between the government and the people, and we must abide by the arbitration to solve the dispute. In order to achieve these aims, the agreement also calls for the establishment of a Iran -- USA combined court, for 6 months did not solve the dispute adjudication. The court's ruling will be final and must comply with, and in accordance with the law, can be in any state court execution.

According to the agreement, America has the responsibility to end all America court, USA individuals or institutions in Iran and its State-Owned Company procedure, all the related attachment and judgment are invalid, and prohibited further action on this basis, to resolve all disputes through arbitration. In addition, America also has until January 19, 1981 to transfer all the people of Iran in the USA domestic assets. Therefore, Iran billions of dollars in assets will be transferred to the Bank of England and the Central Bank of Algeria. In January 19, 1981, President Carter signed a decree "approved by executive order January 19th. Moreover, he also suspended all may be submitted to the international court, "and announced that any court such litigation" in American will not have results. If the International Court agreed that the case does not belong to the scope of its jurisdiction, may terminate the deferred action; when the international court should be compensation and the compensation has been paid, or the decision should not be compensated, the procedure can be revoked.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court president has the power to suspend proceedings.

The Virginia Military Institute rejected girls case

A brief introduction of the case

The final judgment: the plaintiff's appeal, the Supreme Court of final appeal that VWIM cannot replace VMI, reversed the district court and the court of appeal decision.

Dshal to release the suspect deaths

(USA Federal Supreme Court, the Eighth Circuit court,1998)

Cause of action: 1986Years7Month3Day~6Day, the veiled prophet fair in Saint Louis City, Missouri's Jefferson National Expansion Memorial plaza. Expand the memorial plaza belongs to the National Park, it is the maintenance department of the interior for the park and its facilities, and provide other services to visitors, the specific implementation of park management office. Within the park, a park patrol.1986Years,7Month4On the evening ofTens of thousands of people, gathered in the exhibition, including Larry Dshal. Guard David Wisela and Edward Brikis found Dshal caught a woman's buttocks, obviously cause the victim and the crowd's anger. Guard Dshal warned and continue to monitor the action. When Dshal when urinating, patrol arrested him. The guard took Dshal into the tent, Dshal always quarrelling, and continue to rave on female tourists.

Patrol and patrol captain Dennis Bonet after consulting, decided to take Dshal to the Saint Louis police station. But because of the exhibition, the police is overcrowding, officers are unable and unwilling to arrest Dshal. Therefore, Rangers and Saint Louis police officer Lawrence Kim decided to release Dshal, but he is far away from the park to the night unable to return the exhibition.

Dshal was released in a parking lot in Saint Louis, alone, no money, no transport, soon after, he wandered the interstate highway, is a non car killed. Dshal died of blood alcohol concentration0.214The legal limit, due to poisoning. The Dshal family under the Federal Tort Claims doctrine, a park ranger negligence causing death filed a lawsuit in federal court on the grounds USA, municipal and federal officials for compensation.

A trial court decision: the trial judge decision to withdraw the lawsuit. The Dshal family appeal, appeal.

Final judgement:Upheld.

Rod Hare banned marriage case

(USA Federal Supreme Court.1978)

(a)Case description

Summary: according to the Wisconsin law, need this kind of Wisconsin residents -- a minor, the custody of children, or the court should pay by the minor children alimony residents -- without court permission can not get married. The regulations further provisions, the applicant must provide evidence that is willing to assume maintenance responsibility. And the child at the time or will not become a burden of the society, otherwise, the court will not allow the applicant to get married. Without the regulations to allow the marriage as invalid, illegal access to the regulations of the marriage certificate is illegal behavior.

Judgement of first instance: in this case, the appellee falling Haier for failing to comply with the regulations and was refused a marriage certificate. Be sue the appellant, the violation of the law of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the equal protection clause and justice of procedure law. American Federal District Court in Wisconsin District Court accepted the appellee lawsuit, ruling that the law violates the constitution, prohibiting.

The final judgment: Wisconsin's appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

Mennonites in violation of the Compulsory Education Act

America (the Supreme court,1972)

Summary: the defendant Jonas Wallace and Adam in a Mennonite, they and their families are Wisconsin residents of Green county. Wisconsin compulsory education law to ask their children to attend public schools, until the age of 16. But the defendant refused to put their 14 and 15 year old children to school, these children have completed the sixth grade education. The child is not registered in any private school, nor any workers can be justified as compulsory education exception, therefore must obey the law of compulsory education.

Judgement of first instance: administrative officials of Green county public schools to the court, the defendant was the court violated the state compulsory education law, $5 each a fine. The Defence said, compulsory education law violates their legitimate rights and interests protected by the first and Fourteenth Amendment protection. The court debate show, the defendant believes that, according to the Mennonite doctrines, their children into km or private high school and their religion and way of life is to draw further apart, they also believe that, if the child to school, they will not only by the accused, but also make them and their children can not be redeemed. Confirm the defendant's religious faith, honest.

Although the trial court is very careful think Wisconsin compulsory education law does interfere with the religious freedom, but he was still ruling, provisions of children before the age of 16 must accept education is reasonable and constitutional government power, it rejected the request cancellation charges. The Wisconsin circuit court affirmed the accusation, maintain the trial court. However, the freedom of action in terms of the Wisconsin Supreme Court first amendment accepted told debate, dismissed the charges against the defendant.

The final judgment: the Supreme Court, state could not provide enough evidence to show that the establishment and maintenance of the education system important to overthrow the right action of religious freedom degree, thus maintaining the decision of the state Supreme court.

Gladys refused to pay the legal fees

America (the Supreme court,1971)

Hodson Center for power companies prohibit doing promotional advertising case

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1980)

Summary: the New York public service commission rules forbid doing promotional advertising power company. The Public Service Commission announced in 1977 the decree all promotional ads are not in conformity with the national energy conservation policy.

Judgement of first instance: power companies accused of this violation of the first amendment. The trial court shall not violate the constitution of the.

The final judgment: electric power company appeal, the Federal Supreme Court to rescind the original judgment.

Gitlow walks the left wing Manifesto

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1925)

The defendant Benjamin Gitlow is a leftist social. In 1919, the party has a different faction, the current political policy the factions against socialist Socialism -- mild. Social Party Congress elected National Council, the defendant was elected to the committee, actively advocate the use of "left wing manifesto". At the time of the revolution, the declaration published in the official seat. The defendants participated in the drafting of the documents of the Executive Committee, and served as the main member. He arrange the document first period includes the left wing manifesto, printing and dissemination of 16000 copies. The accused admitted signed the declaration and the programme. But there is no evidence that the disclosure and dissemination of the declaration and any consequences. The declaration condemned the moderate socialist policies. It must adopt parliamentary democracy, advocating the use of violence and the revolutionary socialist means to accomplish the Communist revolution, depending on the class struggle and the mobilization of the proletariat "strength in battle", the working-class uprising become mass political strike "revolutionary mass action", to conquer and destroy the parliamentary system the objective, and rely on the dictatorship of the proletariat, the establishment of the Communist social system.

First instance judgment: defendant accused of the crime of anarchism. The case after two court hearing, mean that the defendant is guilty.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court upheld the original verdict.

California state discrimination against whites

(a)Case description

Summary: the Davies College of medicine in California University from 100 places to set aside a quota of 16 quasi to minority -- black Latin Asian American Indians. The school also set up a special committee to be responsible for the work. A man named Alan Beck white allegations the special policy, said he was refused admission, although two years, because of the special policy admitted applicants grades (GPA), MCAT score and computer test score much lower than their.

Judgement of first instance: because of the special policy relates to racial discrimination, the California state Supreme Court to start the strict review procedures, carefully review the university to develop special policies to. Although the court agreed with this point of view, the number of life to medical professional and volunteer and the ethnic minorities with the overriding national interest, but the policy is not the best means for this purpose. California court held that the constitutional equal protection regulations, require the applicant shall not for racial reasons rejected, and the opportunity for a do not meet the conditions of the applicant, because not to race for the admission standards.

Therefore, the policy of state Supreme Court decision illegal, consider race as a factor in determining the prohibition of the students, ruled that Beck (white students) can enroll.

The final judgment: defendant appeal, the Supreme Court agreed that the California court verdict, but about racial problems of dissent.

Keller Beni established the disability living area

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1985)

Case: in 1980 July, Jan Hannah bought a house in Texas, Koehler Beni, ready to rent it to "Keller Beni life center".

Judgement of first instance: after the application held public hearings, the City Council in the ratio of three to one vote veto the request. Think Koehler Beni City, according to the Texas municipal planning rules Koehler Beni relevant provisions, set up such living area must be municipal authorities for permission.

Think in the court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court, the municipal planning regulations violate the equal protection clause, because the doctrine in essence is not conducive to an important municipal purpose.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court final judgment Koehler Beni doctrine does not apply to the case.

Federal drug officials arrested civil case

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1971)

The plaintiff, defendant, namely: the federal drug enforcement officials on behalf of the federal government into the apartment and arrested him, for being suspected of drug crime. These officials when the wife and children face handcuffed him, and threatened to arrest the whole family. They also put the whole apartment searched again.

The plaintiff said the arrest and search without any license, and licensing process unreasonable use of violence. The plaintiff also pointed out that the arrest of couldn't find any reason. The plaintiff said illegal behavior of these people so that they suffered great shame and embarrassment, and proposed a $15000 compensation for the to them.

Judgement of first instance: the district court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, the reason is the cause of action does not exist. The appeal court upheld the verdict.

The final judgment: the court. Court decisions, and to overthrow.

Rod Hare banned marriage case

(America Federal Supreme Court.1978)

(a) case

The final judgment: Wisconsin's appeal, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

Neal banned the publication of defamation case

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1931)

Summary: a law in Minnesota state regulations, if the newspaper or magazine published slander and libel content can have a court injunction prohibiting the continued to publish

According to this law, a local "Saturday newspaper" banned from publishing. Because the article was published in the newspaper, called "a Jewish state control of Mingda, bootleg liquor and fraud, gambling, trafficking crime. But the law does not effectively promote the official and government agencies to perform their duties, restrictions on these activities". Notably the chief of police, accused him in the Jewish illegal collusion, and participate in the distribution of ill-gotten gains.

Judgement of first instance: state court ordered the banning newspapers continue to publish, and enjoin the defendant cannot be published and spread any malicious slander publications".

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court that Minnesota state court's decision is wrong, because the "protection of publishing and freedom of speech" should be subject to the fourteenth amendment.

New York state handling radioactive waste

(USA two help the highest court, 1992)

Summary: later 31 states face slightly radioactive waste treatment in what place. The three clause of slightly radioactive waste disposal policy congressional amendment to handle the responsibility on the state, required processing production in the state of radioactive waste. Therefore, Congress has enacted three stimulus. (1) physical stimulation, can be divided into three steps: (a) processing sites, have the power to other the radioactive waste processing state income sent additional costs in addition to handling charges outside the Department of energy (b) collection of part of the additional expenses in a trust account (c) undertake processing places processing cost, can charge a wig part of the funds from the account (2) the right to accept additional costs -- authorized stimulation treatment place state in some regional contracts increased gradually in the other states to processing, and has the right to refuse to deal with those who do not comply with federal finally sent radioactive waste treatment period, (3) the transfer of ownership -- not after treatment of the state the territory of radioactive waste produced by the state within the specified time, in most cases must take ownership of the waste. If the ownership is not as soon as possible to receive waste, must compensate the producer and the loss.

Judgement of first instance: in this case, the state of New York and its two counties have accused the three measures in violation of the constitution, beyond the power of the Congress, inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment, the lower court rejected the charges.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the first, two measures, to reject the third measures.

Michael M.Statutory rape case

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1981)

(a) case

Summary: in 1978 July, American California state Supreme Court accepted the appeal cases together. At that time only 17 and a half years old man accused of sex appeal occurred before the age of eighteen and a woman, a violation of the California regulations on rape law. The case is as follows: the night of June 3, 1978, the appellant and the two friends meet are waiting for the bus, only 16 years old half girl salad and his sister. At that time, salad and appeal people drank the wine, they left the crowd began to kiss, and after a brief refused salad and the Appellant had sex.

Judgement of first instance: Court of First Instance judgement petitioner guilty. The appellant argued that rape law gender discrimination, violation of state and federal constitution. The court of appeal rejected the appellant's request, the appellant and the appeal to the California Supreme court.

The final judgment: the state Supreme Court that rape law exists gender discrimination because the method that: only women are victims, while men are the only offenders. Gender discrimination is strictly the scope of judicial review in the constitution, must carry on the detailed judgment from the angle of national interests. But in this case, not only because the difference between men and women and social tradition, but also because such an unalterable physiological facts: only women can be pregnant. They paid a heavy price for teenage pregnancy, abortion, including a large number of teenage drug increase in the number of children, girls will bring about serious social problems, week the Supreme Court held that the state governments to prevent illegal reason pregnant phenomenon. Because the male is the cause, only pregnant women physiological on so, only to confirm the victim has reasonable and offenders. Based on this, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of hi weeks. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, still upheld the. But the decision caused controversy.

Mennonites in violation of the Compulsory Education Act

America (the Supreme court,1972)

Mormon polygamy case

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1878)

Summary: area third judicial district court of Utah America to bigamy prosecution of George Renauld. The definition of crime of bigamy is: "where the wife or husband living conditions in another (marry) others -- whether married or -- as long as the American legal jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, should be more than $500 fine and 5 years imprisonment."

First instance judgment: defendant argued in court that: he was for many years a Mormon, faithful belief in mormonism. The church had a widely accepted doctrine: "male members are polygamous obligations when circumstances permit; are mentioned similar Bible this duty to the church; the Almighty God revealed to the church founder Joseph Smith revelation, God asked the members of polygamous system; do not practice polygamy will be punished and after death into the hell" the defendant said, his bigamy the teaching organization approval; Daniel H Wells conducted his wedding, this wedding conform to the teaching of fundamentalism.

The defendant asked the court to explain from a religious angle to the jury, if considering his bigamy is the observance of their religious beliefs or a religious responsibility, should not guilty. But the court did not move in this direction to convince the jury; jury that: "the court is two times first marriage was still alive in a wife is a sinister motive, thus not forgive, is a crime." The court also to the defendant claimed that: "from your crime is not appropriate, you should consider your behavior is brought to the innocent victims of the consequences". These innocent on the increase. There are some women, simple minded and pure child, he is the victim. A similar case occurred in this area, the victim in growing and to expand throughout."

The jury found the defendant guilty, the district court sentenced to a fine of $500 and two years in prison, the appeal, the state Supreme Court decision upheld.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court upheld a state Supreme Court decision.

Neal Prohibit publishing defamation case

(America Federal Supreme court,1931)

Summary: a law in Minnesota state regulations, if the newspaper or magazine published slander and libel content can have a court injunction prohibiting the continued to publish

Judgement of first instance: state court ordered the banning newspapers continue to publish, and enjoin the defendant cannot be published and spread any malicious slander publications".

Plyler illegal immigrant children free education

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1982)

Summary: in this case is the living in the school in Smith County, Texas, Mexico born children of school age, these children have not been America legal recognition. From the beginning of 1977, the county has no legal identity of the child to go to school to learn, must pay enough tuition "". The plaintiff (Mexico born children) can not access to public schools and courts.

A trial court decision: the primary courts that do not let these children receive free public education. Violation of the principle of equal protection.

The final judgment: the federal court finally agreed to the decision.

Vincent posted a campaign slogan

American (the Supreme Court, 1984)

Summary: in 1979 March, Roland Vincent ran for Losangeles city council. A crowd of his supporters made some publicity with his name signs. Their slogan hanging around the utility pole, bottom plate fixed on a piece of paper. Is the slogan of "Roland Vincent: --" but Losangeles lost city councillor law stipulated in article 28.04, prohibiting the posting slogans on the public finance, so workers moved all hung on the pillars of slogans, including Vincent. The majority of withdrawal signs are commercial, but, in the March a week, more than 1200 was removed from the slogan has 48 is Vincent's slogan.

Judgement of first instance: supporters of Vincent alleged that the Ordinance violated the constitution. The trial court decision to withdraw the prosecution, but the appeal court denied the trial court's judgment, that the doctrine of violating the constitution.

The final judgment: the federal supreme court denied the appeal court ruling, maintaining the trial court.

Wo soil prosecution case

American (the Supreme Court, 1975)

Summary: the case involved the prosecution must have what conditions

Rochester City, New York, some residents and institutions to file charges against Penfield town "area, planning and Construction Committee, city planning regulations" said Penfield town put some low - and middle-income people excluded outside of the city violated their rights protected by the constitution.

Judgement of first instance: Primary Court that the complainant no prosecution, not to prosecute.

The final judgment: America Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's judgment.

Neal Prohibit publishing defamation case

(America Federal Supreme court,1931)

Summary: a law in Minnesota state regulations, if the newspaper or magazine published slander and libel content can have a court injunction prohibiting the continued to publish

Judgement of first instance: state court ordered the banning newspapers continue to publish, and enjoin the defendant cannot be published and spread any malicious slander publications".

Nixon Lord judge impeachment

(American Federal Supreme Court, 1993)

Summary: Nixon is the chief judge USA court in Southern Federal District Court of Mississippi, he was two times before a federal grand jury for perjury and sentenced. According to a grand jury, Nixon from the merchant to collect the money, exchange is to request the local court of the termination of the merchants son charges. In 1989 May, house impeached him three guilt. After the house of Representatives, the cases reported to the Senate, the Senate started the eleventh impeachment doctrine vote, according to the regulations, the executive chairman can send the Committee of MPs, collect evidence and testimony. In held four days of hearings, the Senate committee to the Senate Committee presented a full report, there are doubts are respectively made a statement on according to the fact of the monk. Nixon and the house of Representatives impeach officials also told the Senate submitted a final defence, at the same time after oral defense after three hours, they also presented the Senate proposal. Nixon himself proposed the justification of their own, there are a few senators also directly to the parties in question. Finally, the Senate voted two counts more than before a constitutional majority must be fast Nixon 2/3. Executive Chairman Nixon announced the cancellation of the job.

Judgement of first instance: since then, Nixon filed a lawsuit in court, said the Senate section eleventh violation of the Constitution grants all cases of impeachment trial in the Senate right, because the doctrine is not to let all the members of the Senate hearings in evidence. Area court think his request is not a court. The appeals court agreed with the decision.

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court upheld the original verdict.

New York state handling radioactive waste

American (two for highest court, 1992)

The final judgment: the Federal Supreme Court agreed with the first, two measures, to reject the third measures.

Youngstown Steel Corp presidential authority

American (the Supreme Court, 1952)

Summary: at the end of 1951 USA Steel Corp and employees on the terms of the new employment contract dispute. To solve the dispute over various efforts -- including the Federal Trade Committee intervention -- have failed. In April 4, 1952, the steel workers union issued a notice, ready to walk out on April 9th in the national scope. As an indispensable weapon and other war material composition, to stop the production of iron and steel will immediately endanger national defense system, President Truman so that, in order to ensure that the iron and steel production, the government takeover of iron and steel plant is very necessary. Hours before the strike began, the president signed 10340 executive orders, orders for commercial department took over most of the country and the production of iron and steel works as usual. Ministry of Commerce issued immediately take over the order, the president of the predecessor company transferred to USA government management personnel. The second day morning, the president of his actions to the Congress, Congress does not have any reaction.

Judgement of first instance: Steel Corp sued to the district court, a April 30th court for injunction, limited commercial department continues to take over the factory and the implementation of executive order No. 10340th. The same day, a court of Appeals upheld the injunction

Final decision: in view of the urgency of the dispute, the Supreme Court in May 30th and accepted the case and the trial in May 12th, ruled in June 2nd, that the president has no power to sign such a command, the maintenance decision.

Josiah child abuse case

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1989)

(a) case

The prosecution.: man is a beaten by his father and cause permanent damage boy. The defendant is the go to social workers and local officials. Prosecutors had received to the plaintiff father abuse and the exact facts, but the defendant did not take steps to cancel the custody of his father, thereby depriving the prosecution rights under the constitution, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution America justice of procedure law.

A trial court decision: the district court found the defendant not guilty before the body.

The final judgment: the plaintiff appeal. The Seventh Circuit Court of appeal in maintaining regional court, the Federal Supreme Court of final appeal still maintain verdict. But the decision of the Supreme Court were disputed.

Heath interstate guxiong murder

(America Federal Supreme Court, 1985)

Summary: in 1981 August, the plaintiff Larry Jain Heath paid $2000 to hire Charles Owens and Gregory Lumpkin to assassinate the 9 months pregnant wife Rebecca Heath. 1981 you say August 31st, leave the complainant in Russell County, Alabama Heath house, across the Alabama state meet at Georgia and Owens Waprankin. The complainant and then bring them back to the house and handed the house and car keys, he left the house in a girlfriend truck. Owens and the Burang Jin kidnapped Rebecca Heath. The car and the body was found in the Georgia, Rebecca Tero Hampshire roadside. Cause of death was being shot in the head. According to the time and distance that death was found between locations and Heath house, the murder occurred in Georgia, the defendant has not denied.

Judgement of first instance: Heath was Georgia, charged with attempted murder. In the state of Georgia told the Sith may be sentenced to death, Heath pleaded guilty in exchange for life imprisonment (in this case the prison time may be shorter than 7 years). Soon after, Alabama in the jury found Heath guilty of kidnapping and murder and sentenced to death. Heath put forward the theory of double conviction, and claimed that Alabama had no jurisdiction, because the crime took place in the state of Georgia. Alabama state court rejected Heath's claim. The court said that according to the laws of the state of Alabama have jurisdiction in the territory of the state of crime, regardless of whether the crime where complete. Alabama jury found guilty of first-degree kidnapping the murder and proposed the death sentence. The trial court accepted the jury's proposal, that when the defendant guilty of kidnapping crime can be a death sentence, the more severe than the defendant because Georgia sentence final sentence for the murder of Rebecca Heath. Alabama Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, according to the principle of dual sovereignty, excluding double conviction clause.

Final decision: to maintain the state of Alabama

Youngstown Steel Corp presidential authority

American (the Supreme Court, 1952)