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 46: Line 46:
 
   |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]]
 
}}
 
}}
 +
|-
 +
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
 +
! [[../|Current]] code
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
Line 86: Line 89:
 
| 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
 
| 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
 
}}
 
}}
 +
|-
 +
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
 +
! [[../|Current]] code
 
|-
 
|-
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
Line 127: Line 133:
 
   |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
 
   |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
 
   |LawsApplied=[[United States Constitution]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Amendment XIV]]
 
   |LawsApplied=[[United States Constitution]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Amendment XIV]]
 +
}}
 +
|-
 +
! [[../sandbox|Sandbox]] code
 +
! [[../|Current]] code
 +
|-
 +
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 +
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
 +
  |Litigants=Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
 +
  |ArgueDate=March 24
 +
  |ArgueYear=2009
 +
  |ReargueDate=September 9
 +
  |ReargueYear=2009
 +
  |DecideDate=January 21
 +
  |DecideYear=2010
 +
  |FullName= Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
 +
  |USVol=558
 +
  |USPage=310
 +
  |Docket=08-205
 +
  |OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument/
 +
  |OralReargument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/reargument/
 +
  |OpinionAnnouncement=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/opinion/
 +
  |Citation=130 S.Ct. 876
 +
  |Prior=''denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction'' 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)<ref name="Cornell"/> ''probable jurisdiction noted'' 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
 +
  |Subsequent=
 +
  |Holding=A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
 +
  |SCOTUS=2009-2010
 +
  |Majority=Kennedy
 +
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
 +
  |Concurrence=Roberts
 +
  |JoinConcurrence=Alito
 +
  |Concurrence2=Scalia
 +
  |JoinConcurrence2=Alito; Thomas (in part)
 +
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens
 +
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
 +
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Thomas
 +
  |LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]
 +
}}
 +
| style="vertical-align:top;" |
 +
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 +
  |Litigants=Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
 +
  |ArgueDate=March 24
 +
  |ArgueYear=2009
 +
  |ReargueDate=September 9
 +
  |ReargueYear=2009
 +
  |DecideDate=January 21
 +
  |DecideYear=2010
 +
  |FullName= Citizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
 +
  |USVol=558
 +
  |USPage=310
 +
  |Docket=08-205
 +
  |OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/argument/
 +
  |OralReargument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/reargument/
 +
  |OpinionAnnouncement=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_205/opinion/
 +
  |Citation=130 S.Ct. 876
 +
  |Prior=''denied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction'' 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)<ref name="Cornell"/> ''probable jurisdiction noted'' 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
 +
  |Subsequent=
 +
  |Holding=A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
 +
  |SCOTUS=2009-2010
 +
  |Majority=Kennedy
 +
  |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
 +
  |Concurrence=Roberts
 +
  |JoinConcurrence=Alito
 +
  |Concurrence2=Scalia
 +
  |JoinConcurrence2=Alito; Thomas (in part)
 +
  |Concurrence/Dissent=Stevens
 +
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
 +
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=Thomas
 +
  |LawsApplied=[[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. I]]
 
}}
 
}}
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
== References ==
 +
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 04:07, 25 November 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
Sandbox code Current code
[[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
Sandbox code Current code
[[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
Sandbox code Current code
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket no.[[[:Template:SCOTUS URL Docket]] 08-205]
Citations558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Priordenied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
Holding
A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court
Argued March 24, 2009
Reargued September 9, 2009
Decided January 21, 2010
Full case nameCitizens United, Appellant v. Federal Election Commission
Docket no.[[[:Template:SCOTUS URL Docket]] 08-205]
Citations558 U.S. 310 (more)
130 S.Ct. 876
ArgumentOral argument
ReargumentReargument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Priordenied appellants motion for a preliminary injunction 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2008)[1] probable jurisdiction noted 128 S. Ct. 1471 (2008).
Holding
A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Expression error: Unexpected < operator.John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Alito; Thomas (all but Part IV); Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor (only as to Part IV)
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Alito
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Alito; Thomas (in part)
Concur/dissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Concur/dissentThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Cornell