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

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>MZMcBride
(new page)
 
imported>MZMcBride
(+test code)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== ''United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs'' ===
+
{|
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
+
! Old
|Litigants=United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
+
! New
|ArgueDate=January 20
+
|-
|ArgueYear=1966
+
|
|DecideDate=March 28
+
{{Infobox SCOTUS case/sandbox
|DecideYear=1966
+
|Litigants=Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
|FullName=United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs
+
|ArgueDate=December 9
|USVol=383
+
|ArgueYear=1952
|USPage=715
+
|ReargueDate=December 8
|Citation=
+
|ReargueYear=1953
|Prior=343 F.2d 609 (6th cir., 1965), reversed.
+
|DecideDate=May 17
|Subsequent=
+
|DecideYear=1954
|Holding=In order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once.
+
|FullName=Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.
|SCOTUS=1965-1967
+
|Citation=74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
|Majority=Brennan
+
|USVol=347
|JoinMajority=Black, Douglas, Stewart, White, Fortas
+
|USPage=483
|Concurrence=Harlan
+
|Prior=Judgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 ([[United States District Court for the District of Kansas|D. Kan.]] 1951)
|JoinConcurrence=Clark
+
|Subsequent=Judgment 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)
|NotParticipating=Warren
+
|Holding=Segregation of students in [[public school]]s violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
|LawsApplied=[[Article Three of the United States Constitution|U.S. Const., Art III § 2]]; [[Labor Management Relations Act]]
+
|SCOTUS=1953-1954
}}
+
|Majority=Warren
 
+
|JoinMajority=''Unanimous''
{{clear}}
+
|LawsApplied=[[United States Constitution]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Amendment XIV]]
 
 
=== ''Roe v. Wade'' ===
 
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 
  |Litigants=Roe v. Wade
 
  |ArgueDate=December 13
 
  |ArgueYear=1971
 
  |ReargueDate=October 11
 
  |ReargueYear=1972
 
  |DecideDate=January 22
 
  |DecideYear=1973
 
  |FullName=[[Norma McCorvey|Jane Roe]], et al. v. [[Henry Wade]], District Attorney of Dallas County
 
  |Citation=93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; [http://www.lexis.com/research/slft?cite=3139373320552E532E204C455849532020313539&keyenum=15451&keytnum=0 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159]
 
  |USVol=410
 
  |USPage=113
 
  |Prior=''Judgment for plaintiffs, injunction denied'', 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970); ''probable jurisdiction noted'', 402 U.S. 941 (1971); ''set for reargument'', 408 U.S. 919 (1972)
 
  |Subsequent=''Rehearing denied'', 410 U.S. 959 (1973)
 
  |Holding=Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. [[U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas]] affirmed in part, reversed in part.
 
  |OralArgument=http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/argument/
 
  |SCOTUS=1972-1975
 
  |Majority=Blackmun
 
  |JoinMajority=Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell
 
  |Concurrence=Burger
 
  |Concurrence2=Douglas
 
  |Concurrence3=Stewart
 
  |Dissent=White
 
  |JoinDissent=Rehnquist
 
  |Dissent2=Rehnquist
 
  |LawsApplied=[[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. Amend. XIV]]; Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 1191–94, 1196
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
+
|
{{clear}}
 
 
 
=== ''Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation'' ===
 
 
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation
+
|Litigants=Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
  |ArgueDate=January 9
+
|ArgueDate=December 9
  |ArgueYear=2007
+
|ArgueYear=1952
  |DecideDate=March 5
+
|ReargueDate=December 8
  |DecideYear=2007
+
|ReargueYear=1953
  |FullName=Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation
+
|DecideDate=May 17
  |USVol=549
+
|DecideYear=1954
  |USPage=422
+
|FullName=Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al.
  |Citation=
+
|Citation=74 S. Ct. 686; 98 L. Ed. 873; 1954 U.S. LEXIS 2094; 53 Ohio Op. 326; 38 A.L.R.2d 1180
  |Prior=
+
|USVol=347
  |Subsequent=
+
|USPage=483
  |Holding=
+
|Prior=Judgment for defendants, 98 F. Supp. 797 ([[United States District Court for the District of Kansas|D. Kan.]] 1951)
  |SCOTUS=2007
+
|Subsequent=Judgment 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)
  |Majority=Ginsburg
+
|Holding=Segregation of students in [[public school]]s violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], because separate facilities are inherently unequal. District Court of Kansas reversed.
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
+
|SCOTUS=1953-1954
  |LawsApplied=
+
|Majority=Warren
 +
|JoinMajority=''Unanimous''
 +
|LawsApplied=[[United States Constitution]], [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Amendment XIV]]
 
}}
 
}}
 
+
|}
{{clear}}
 
 
 
=== ''Herring v. United States'' ===
 
{{SCOTUSCase
 
  |Litigants=Herring v. United States
 
  |ArgueDate=October 7
 
  |ArgueYear=2008
 
  |DecideDate=
 
  |DecideYear=
 
  |FullName=Bennie Dean Herring, Plaintiff, v. United States of America
 
  |Docket=07-513
 
  |Prior=Defendant convicted, United States District Court, Middle District of Alabama
 
  |Subsequent=Appeal denied, July 17, 2007 (Case #06-10795).<br />Certiorari granted, February 20, 2008
 
  |QuestionsPresented=The question of whether evidence gathered by a law enforcement officer in a good-faith search based on erroneous information provided by a law enforcement agency other than the one employing said officer should be subject to [[Exclusionary rule|exclusion]]
 
  |SCOTUS=2008
 
  |Majority=
 
  |JoinMajority=
 
  |Concurrence=
 
  |Concurrence=
 
  |Concurrence=
 
  |Dissent=
 
  |JoinDissent=
 
  |LawsApplied=
 
}}
 
 
 
{{clear}}
 
 
 
=== Blank template (commonly needed) ===
 
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 
  |Litigants=
 
  |ArgueDate=
 
  |ArgueYear=
 
  |DecideDate=
 
  |DecideYear=
 
  |FullName=
 
  |USVol=
 
  |USPage=
 
  |Citation=
 
  |Prior=
 
  |Subsequent=
 
  |Holding=
 
  |SCOTUS=YEAR-YEAR
 
  |Majority=
 
  |JoinMajority=
 
  |Concurrence=
 
  |JoinConcurrence=
 
  |Concurrence2=
 
  |JoinConcurrence2=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
 
  |Dissent=
 
  |JoinDissent=
 
  |Dissent2=
 
  |JoinDissent2=
 
  |LawsApplied=
 
}}
 
 
 
{{clear}}
 
 
 
=== Blank template (uncommonly needed) ===
 
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
 
  |Litigants=
 
  |Litigants2=
 
  |Litigants3=
 
  |Litigants4=
 
  |Litigants5=
 
  |OriginalJurisdiction=yes
 
  |ArgueDate=
 
  |ArgueDateA=
 
  |ArgueDateB=
 
  |ArgueYear=
 
  |ReargueDate=
 
  |ReargueDate2=
 
  |ReargueDateA=
 
  |ReargueDateB=
 
  |ReargueDateA2=
 
  |ReargueDateB2=
 
  |ReargueYear=
 
  |ReargueYear2=
 
  |SubmitDate=
 
  |SubmitYear=
 
  |DecideDate=
 
  |DecideYear=
 
  |FullName=
 
  |Docket=
 
  |Docket2=
 
  |Docket3=
 
  |Docket4=
 
  |Docket5=
 
  |Oral Argument=
 
  |CitationNew=
 
  |Citation=
 
  |USVol=
 
  |USPage=
 
  |Claim=
 
  |Prior=
 
  |Procedural=
 
  |Subsequent=
 
  |QuestionsPresented=
 
  |Holding=
 
  |SCOTUS=YEAR-YEAR
 
  |PerCuriam=yes
 
  |Majority=
 
  |JoinMajority=
 
  |Majority2=
 
  |JoinMajority2=
 
  |Majority3=
 
  |JoinMajority3=
 
  |Plurality=
 
  |JoinPlurality=
 
  |Concurrence=
 
  |JoinConcurrence=
 
  |Concurrence2=
 
  |JoinConcurrence2=
 
  |Concurrence3=
 
  |JoinConcurrence3=
 
  |Concurrence4=
 
  |JoinConcurrence4=
 
  |Concurrence5=
 
  |JoinConcurrence5=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent2=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent2=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent3=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent3=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent4=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent4=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent5=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent5=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent6=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent6=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent7=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent7=
 
  |Concurrence/Dissent8=
 
  |JoinConcurrence/Dissent8=
 
  |Dissent=
 
  |JoinDissent=
 
  |ConcurrenceDissent=
 
  |Dissent2=
 
  |JoinDissent2=
 
  |ConcurrenceDissent2=
 
  |Dissent3=
 
  |JoinDissent3=
 
  |ConcurrenceDissent3=
 
  |Dissent4=
 
  |JoinDissent4=
 
  |ConcurrenceDissent4=
 
  |Dissent5=
 
  |JoinDissent5=
 
  |ConcurrenceDissent5=
 
  |NotParticipating=
 
  |Seriatim=
 
  |Seriatim2=
 
  |Seriatim3=
 
  |Seriatim4=
 
  |Seriatim5=
 
  |LawsApplied=
 
  |Superseded=
 
  |Overruled=
 
}}__NOTOC__
 

Revision as of 16:10, 6 May 2009

Old New
[[Category:Template:Pagetype with short description]]
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
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 of Topeka
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