Difference between revisions of "Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>MZMcBride
(updated page)
imported>MZMcBride
(updated page)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
 
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
 
! [[../|Current]] code
 
! [[../|Current]] code
|-
 
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
Line 46: Line 45:
 
   |NotParticipating=Ellsworth and Cushing
 
   |NotParticipating=Ellsworth and Cushing
 
   |LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. art. I]]
 
   |LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. art. I]]
 +
}}
 +
|-
 +
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 +
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
 +
| Litigants=Marbury v. Madison
 +
| ArgueDate=February 11
 +
| ArgueYear=1803
 +
| DecideDate=February 24
 +
| DecideYear=1803
 +
| FullName=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
 +
| USVol=5
 +
| USPage=137
 +
| Citation=1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
 +
| Prior=Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
 +
| Subsequent=None
 +
| Holding=Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
 +
| Majority=Marshall
 +
| JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington
 +
| NotParticipating=Cushing and Moore
 +
| LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. arts. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] § 13
 +
}}
 +
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 +
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 +
| Litigants=Marbury v. Madison
 +
| ArgueDate=February 11
 +
| ArgueYear=1803
 +
| DecideDate=February 24
 +
| DecideYear=1803
 +
| FullName=William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
 +
| USVol=5
 +
| USPage=137
 +
| Citation=1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
 +
| Prior=Original action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
 +
| Subsequent=None
 +
| Holding=Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
 +
| SCOTUS=1801-1804
 +
| Majority=Marshall
 +
| JoinMajority=Paterson, Chase, Washington
 +
| NotParticipating=Cushing and Moore
 +
| LawsApplied=[[Article One of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. arts. I]], [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|III]]; [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] § 13
 
}}
 
}}
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 18:40, 23 May 2012

Sandbox code Current code
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Hylton v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued February 23, 1796
Decided March 8, 1796
Full case nameDaniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
Citations3 U.S. 171 (more)
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
SubsequentNone
Holding
A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinions
SeriatimChase
SeriatimPaterson
SeriatimIredell
SeriatimWilson
Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Hylton v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued February 23, 1796
Decided March 8, 1796
Full case nameDaniel Hylton, Plaintiff in Error v. The United States
Citations3 U.S. 171 (more)
3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171; 1 L. Ed. 556; 1796 U.S. LEXIS 397; 2 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 2155
Case history
PriorDefendant convicted, Circuit Court for the District of Virginia
SubsequentNone
Holding
A tax on the possession of goods is not a "direct" tax, which must be apportioned under Article I of the Constitution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Oliver Ellsworth
Associate Justices
James Wilson · William Cushing
James Iredell · William Paterson
Samuel Chase
Case opinions
SeriatimChase
SeriatimPaterson
SeriatimIredell
SeriatimWilson
Ellsworth and Cushing took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Marbury v. Madison
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case nameWilliam Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Citations5 U.S. 137 (more)
1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Case history
PriorOriginal action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
SubsequentNone
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington
Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Marbury v. Madison
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued February 11, 1803
Decided February 24, 1803
Full case nameWilliam Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States
Citations5 U.S. 137 (more)
1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S. LEXIS 352
Case history
PriorOriginal action filed in U.S. Supreme Court; order to show cause why writ of mandamus should not issue, December 1801
SubsequentNone
Holding
Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial system to interpret what the Constitution permits.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Marshall
Associate Justices
William Cushing · William Paterson
Samuel Chase · Bushrod Washington
Alfred Moore
Case opinion
MajorityMarshall, joined by Paterson, Chase, Washington
Cushing and Moore took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. arts. I, III; Judiciary Act of 1789 § 13
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Brown v. Board of Education
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
Full case nameOliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
Citations347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)
SubsequentJudgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999)
Holding
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Brown v. Board of Education
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
Decided May 17, 1954
Full case nameOliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al.
Citations347 U.S. 483 (more)
74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
Case history
PriorJudgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 (D. Kan. 1951)
SubsequentJudgment on relief, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (Brown II); on remand, 139 F. Supp. 468 (D. Kan. 1955); motion to intervene granted, 84 F.R.D. 383 (D. Kan. 1979); judgment for defendants, 671 F. Supp. 1290 (D. Kan. 1987); reversed, 892 F.2d 851 (10th Cir. 1989); vacated, 503 U.S. 978 (1992) (Brown III); judgment reinstated, 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1992); judgment for defendants, 56 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Kan. 1999)
Holding
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas
Robert H. Jackson · Harold H. Burton
Tom C. Clark · Sherman Minton
Case opinion
MajorityWarren, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
United States Constitution, Amendment XIV