Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
69 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What was the dispute in Marbury v. Madison and who won?
|
President John Adams appointed William Marbury a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but the secretary of state did not deliver it as required. Thomas Jefferson, the new President, ordered James Madison, the new Secretary of State, not to deliver the commission. Marbury sued James Madison to force him to deliver the commission.
The court found that Marbury had the right to the commission but that the court did not have the power to force its delivery. |
|
|
What was the ruling in
Marbury v. Madison? |
Section 13 of the judiciary act of 1789 is unconstitional to the extent that it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that which is allowed by the constitution.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Marbury v. Madison?
|
Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Federal Courts to interpret what the constitution permits.
It is the basis for the excercise of judicial review in the United States. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Chief Justice John Marshall |
|
|
What was the dispute in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and who won?
|
During the revolution, Virginia passed a law allowing it to confiscate Loyalists' property. One Loyalist, Denny Martin, sued on the grounds that treaties with Great Britain guaranteed protection of Loyalist property. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Virgina supreme court, saying that the treaty did cover the dispute. The Virginia court argued that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have authority in cases originating in State court, and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision on appeal. Martin won.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee?
|
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction and authority over state courts in matters involving federal law.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee?
|
It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law, and established the Supreme Court's supremacy in matters of constitutional interpretation.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Flast v. Cohen and who won?
|
Flast sued Cohen, contending that spending funds on religious schools violated the 1st Amendment's bar on the establishment of religion. The district court denied standing, and the Supreme Court heard the appeal. Flast won.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Flast v. Cohen?
|
Taxpayers have standing to sue to prevent the disbursement of federal funds in contravention of the specific constitutional prohibition against government support of religion.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Flast v. Cohen?
|
Established rules giving standing to taxpayers challenging federal spending if they satisfied a "double nexus" test.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in DeFunis v. Odegaard and who won?
|
A student (DeFunis) who had been denied admission to the University of the Washington School of Law, and then provisionally admitted during the pendancy of the case, was slated to graduate within a few months at the time he decision was rendered. He graduated.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in DeFunis v. Odegaard?
|
The court held that the case was moot.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of DeFunis v. Odegaard?
|
An example of a controversy between parties ceasing to be definite and concrete and no longer touching two parties with adversary legal interests.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and who won?
|
An amendment to the Endangered Species Act limited its scope to actions in the United States or on the high seas. Defenders of Wildlife and other conservation groups filed an action seeking a judgement that the amendment erred by geographically limiting the original law. Lujan won.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?
|
The court ruled that Defenders of Wildlife lacked standing to sue, because the threat of a species' extinction alone did not establish an individual and nonspeculative injury.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife?
|
It diluted standing.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Baker v. Carr and who won?
|
Baker sued because Tennessee had not been redistricted as required by law, and his district's votes were not worth as much as others. His arugment was that he failed to receive equal protection. Baker won.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Baker v. Carr?
|
The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and is justiciable by federal courts.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Baker v. Carr?
|
Marked a retreat from the Court's political question doctrine, and clarified it. Political questions are marked by:
1) textually demonstrable commitment to other branch of government 2) A lack of judicially discoverable standards for resolving it 3) Impossibility to decide without disrespecting other branch of govt. 4) Requires policy decision improper for the judicial 5) Need to unite behind an already decided question 6) The potential of embarrassment from different pronouncements by different branches. Also, fundamentally altered political representation in the US, requiring many states to redistrict, often several times. |
|
|
What was the dispute in Goldwater v. Carter and who won?
|
Senator Barry Goldwater and colleagues sued challenging the right of President Carter to unilaterally nullify a defense treaty with Taiwan.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Goldwater v. Carter?
|
Case was dismissed as a political question, because it concerned how foreign affairs were conducted between Congress and the President.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Goldwater v. Carter?
|
Considered a textbook case in the political question doctrine in US civil procedure.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Calder v. Bull and who won?
|
Bull persuaded the Connecticut legislature to change a restriction on appeals, allowing them to appeal a case regarding the contents of a will. Calder, the initial inheritor, took the case to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Calder v. Bull?
|
Court held that the legislation was not an ex post facto law.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Calder v. Bull?
|
Deals with Americans' individual rights and whether or not the Supreme Court has the authority to review state legislation.
Clarified that ex post facto provision in the Constitution applies solely to criminal cases. Justice Chase noted that while all ex post facto laws are retroactive, not all retroactive laws are ex post facto. |
|
|
What was the dispute in Barron v. Baltimore and who won?
|
Barron sued the mayor of Baltimore for damages to his wharf, claiming that Baltimore seized his property without compensation. Baltimore won.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Barron v. Baltimore?
|
State governments are not bound by the 5th Amendment's requirement for just compensation in cases of eminent domain.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Barron v. Baltimore?
|
It stated that the freedoms provided by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state governments. Has since been implicitly been overrules by the use of the due process clause and the doctrine of incorporation.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Fletcher v. Peck and who won?
|
Peck had purchased land previously sold under a Georgia act in which land was sold in return for bribes. Peck sold it to Fletcher, who sued for his money back claiming that Peck did not have clear title to the land when he sold it. Fletcher couldn't lose.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Fletcher v. Peck?
|
The contracts cause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Georgia from voiding contracts for the transfer of land, even though they were secured through illegal bribery.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Fletcher v. Peck?
|
It was the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. Today it protects property rights against public pressures.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge and who won?
|
The Charles River Bridge Company was granted a charter to build a bridge and charge tolls between Boston and Charlestown. When Massachusetts sanctioned the Warren Bridge, which would be free and built in very close proximity, the Charles River Bridge sued, claiming that the original charter implied exclusive rights and that the Massachusetts legislature had broken its contract.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge?
|
That Massachusetts' decision to grant a charter to the Warren Bridge was not a violation of the ex post facto provision in the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge?
|
Settled a dispute over the constitutional clause regarding obligation of contract. Also noted that if specifics weren't written down, they were legally nonexistent for contract purposes.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in The Slaughter-House Cases and who won?
|
A group of butchers filed actions seeking to stop the creation of a corporation centralizing all slaughterhouse operations in New Orleans. Butchers lost.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in The Slaughter-House Cases ?
|
Privileges and Immunities of the United States were protected by the 14th Amendment, not P&I of a state.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of The Slaughter-House Cases ?
|
Biggest effect is that national citizenship is made dominant, and state citizenship transient and inferior. Supreme Court effectively assassinates the P&I clause - the ruling is demonstrably wrong but has never been repudiated.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Munn v. Illinois and who won?
|
The state of Illinois regulated grain elevator and warehouse rates by establishing maximum rates for their use. Munn was prosecuted for charging higher rates. He argued that 1) it was unconstitutional for the state to set his rate, and 2) the rate was set so low that it required him to operate at a loss.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Munn v. Illinois?
|
The constitution did not prevent Illinois from regulating charges - a private company can be regulated if it could be seen as a utility affecting the public interest.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Munn v. Illinois?
|
Affects economic substantive due process - becomes a barrier to any regulation in prices unless it affects the public interest directly.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Lochner v. New York and who won?
|
Lochner was fined for "overworking an employee" in contravention to a recently-passed New York law limiting the work week of individuals working in bakeries. Lochner claimed it affected his "right to free contract."
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Lochner v. New York?
|
New York's regulation of the working hours of bakers was not a justifiable restriction of the right to free contract under the 14th Amendment's guarantee of liberty.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Lochner v. New York?
|
Invalidated some economic and labor regulations and began a narrow view of State police powers.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Adkins v. Children's Hospital and who won?
|
Adkins sued the Children's Hospital claiming that the minimum wage violated her right to contract freely.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Adkins v. Children's Hospital?
|
That the minimum wage law for women violated the due process right to contract freely, and ruled that the rate of pay must be sufficient to sustain the "health and virtue" of the employed woman.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Adkins v. Children's Hospital?
|
Showed that any substantive due process regulation which fell into the wages or employment contract realm is unconstitutional, "burden of proof be damned."
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Nebbia v. New York and who won?
|
Nebbia, the owner of a grocery store, sold two quarts of milk and a loaf of bread for 18 cents, after New York had established a control board which set the price of milk at 9 cents per quart. Nebbia argued that the statute violated the equal protection and due process clauses.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Nebbia v. New York?
|
In the absence of other constitutional prohibitions, the due process clause does not prohibit a state from enacting economic regulations to further the public good, as long as the policy is not unreasonable or arbitrary.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Nebbia v. New York?
|
States that there is no constitutionally protected right to freedom of contract. Heavy blow to economic substantive due process of law.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and who won?
|
Parrish, a maid working at the hotel, sued the hotel for the difference in what she was paid, and the $14.50 per 48-hour week set forth by Washington State's minimum wage law.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish?
|
Washington's minimum wage law was a valid regulation of the right of contract because of the state's interest in protecting the health and virtue of women.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish?
|
Overturned Adkins v. Children's Hospital.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Eakin v. Raub and who won?
|
Eakin sued Raub, and the case went to the Supreme Court as a case involving the power of a state court to invalidate a state law.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Eakin v. Raub?
|
That a state court has the power to review state legislation, and if that legislation contradicts the state constitution, to declare those acts void.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Eakin v. Raub?
|
The facts of the actual case are of little importance, but Justice Gibson's dissent is a powerful refutation of judicial review and the Marbury decision.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Frothingham v. Mellon and who won?
|
Frothingham sued over treasury expenditures for an act in Congress, saying that she would have property taken without due process, because it would cause a general increase in her taxes.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Frothingham v. Mellon?
|
A single taxpayer does not have standing to sue over federal spending if her only injury is an anticipated increase in taxes.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Frothingham v. Mellon?
|
Court ruled essentially that stake in a case must be substantial and tangible. There was no visible way in which the expenditure could affect Mrs. Fronthingham.
|
|
|
What was the dispute in Penn Central v. New York and who won?
|
Grand Central Station had planned an office tower to be built ovre the building when the government designated it a historical landmark. Penn Central sued, arguing that was a victim of a constitutional seizure because they could no longer use the space above their land.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Penn Central v. New York?
|
Court ruled that there was not a taking requiring just compensation under the Constitution when the government designated Grand Central Station a historical landmark, stopping a proposed office tower construction.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Penn Central v. New York?
|
Supreme Court ruling essentially says that you can't subdivide property, and nothing in the takings clause insists on the most profitable use of a piece of property, only on the destruction of existing value. Rehnquist argues that the burden of the entire population's interests should not saddle on a small set of owners.
|
|
|
What is the dispute in United States v. Carolene Products?
|
An act of Congress banned the interstate shipment of filled milk. Carolene products, a vendor of filled milk, was prosecuted for violating the act, and they challenged the law. Argued that their milk has no harmful producsts, does not spoil, etc.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in United States v. Carolene Products?
|
The Court upholds the act, saying essentially that if there are any facts at all which would make the claim reasonable, they would be considered.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of United States v. Carolene Products?
|
It's a sort of death blow to economic substantive due process
|
|
|
What is the dispute in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell?
|
In an effort to combat the effects of the Great Depression, the Minnessota legislature passes an act effectively bailing out farmers, telling creditors they can't foreclose.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell?
|
The Justices upheld the moratorium on foreclosures as constitutional.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell?
|
The Great Depression was viewed as so different that it required a difference in kind. Three things contributed to the court's ruling:
- It was an emergency situation. - The law was plainly cast as an emergency measure. - Every effort was made by the State to protect the creditors' rights. |
|
|
What is the dispute in Kelo v. City of New London?
|
The city of New London issued a condemnation transferring a tract of land from one owner to another so that it could be part of a comprehensive development plan.
|
|
|
What was the ruling in Kelo v. City of New London?
|
The use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to furher economic development is a permissible use under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
|
|
|
What is the relevance of Kelo v. City of New London?
|
The decision has been widely criticized by American politicians and the general public, and seen as a gross violation of property rights.
|
