
#REDIRECT List of United States Supreme Court cases
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. ==1790–1819== * ''Chisholm v. Georgia,'' : first “major” case; federal jurisdiction over suits vs. states * ''Marbury v. Madison,'' : judicial review of laws enacted by Congress * ''Stuart v. Laird,'' : enforceability of rulings issued by judges who have since been removed from office * ''Ex Parte Bollman,'' : habeas corpus, definition of treason, Supreme Court’s power to issue writs to circuit courts * ''Fletcher v. Peck,'' : property rights * ''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,'' : Loyalist (American Revolution) property forfeiture, Supreme Court review of state court judgments * ''McCulloch v. Maryland,'' : doctrine of implied powers * ''Dartmouth College v. Woodward,'' : impairment of contracts ==1820–1839== * ''Cohens v. Virginia,'' : judicial review of state supreme court decisions * ''Gibbons v. Ogden,'' : Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce * ''Ogden v. Saunders,'' : state bankruptcy law * ''Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,'' : Indian nations as foreign states * ''Worcester v. Georgia,'' : Indian removal * ''Barron v. Baltimore,'' : reach of the Bill of Rights * ''Wheaton v. Peters,'' : copyright perpetuity; Common law copyright ==1840–1859== * ''The Amistad,'' : slave trade and slave ownership (see Amistad) * ''Prigg v. Pennsylvania,'' : runaway slaves * ''Cooley v. Board of Wardens'', : pilotage laws * ''Dred Scott v. Sandford,'' : slavery, citizenship ==1860–1879== * ''Prize Cases,'' : presidential powers in wartime * ''Ex Parte Milligan,'' : habeas corpus, military tribunals * ''Ex Parte Garland,'' : retroactive civil disability for former Confederate officers * ''Ex Parte McCardle,'' : congressional power to limit Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction * ''Texas v. White,'' : constitutionality of state secession * ''United States v. Klein,'' : separation of powers * ''Slaughterhouse Cases,'' : freedom of employment * ''Bradwell v. Illinois,'' : equal protection, exclusion of women from employment * ''Minor v. Happersett,'' : Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right to vote * ''Totten v. United States,'' : jurisdiction over espionage agreements * ''United States v. Cruikshank,'' : application of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendments to the states * ''Munn v. Illinois,'' : corporations and agricultural regulation * ''Reynolds v. United States,'' : polygamy and freedom of religion ==1880–1899== * ''Strauder v. West Virginia,'' : exclusion of blacks from juries * ''Civil Rights Cases,'' : power of federal government to prohibit racial discrimination by private parties * ''Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,'' : copyrightability of photographs * ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,'' : corporate personhood * ''Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois,'' : regulation of interstate commerce by individual states, creation of ICC * ''Dent v. West Virginia,'' : state licensing of doctors * ''Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad v. Minnesota,'' : states and railway fees * ''Nix v. Hedden,'' : status of the tomato as fruit or vegetable * ''United States v. E. C. Knight Co.,'' : antitrust action; “Sugar Trust Case” * ''Coffin v. United States,'' : the presumption of innocence. * ''In re Debs,'' : strikes and interstate commerce * ''Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,'' : income tax and tariffs * ''Plessy v. Ferguson,'' : segregation; “separate but equal” * ''United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association,'' : railroads and rate fixing * ''Holden v. Hardy,'' : * ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark,'' : citizenship and race * ''Hawker v. New York,'' : character and doctor’s licenses * ''Williams v. Mississippi,'' : literacy tests * ''Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education,'' : segregation in public schools ==1900–1919== * ''Marks v. Shoup,'' : Property issues * ''Insular Cases,'' (numerous) constitutional status of Puerto Rico and the Philippines **''DeLima v. Bidwell,'' : **''Goetze v. United States,'' : **''Armstrong v. United States,'' : **''Downes v. Bidwell,'' : **''Huus v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co.,'' : **''Dooley v. United States,'' : **''Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States,'' : * ''Hawaii v. Manikichi,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Kepner v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Dorr v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Gonzales v. Williams,'' : Puerto Ricans and illegal aliens * ''Rasmussen v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Lochner v. New York,'' : freedom of contract, substantive due process * ''Hale v. Henkel,'' : witness testimony in antitrust cases * ''Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs,'' : * ''Adair v. United States,'' : "Yellow Dog contract" * ''Muller v. Oregon,'' : protective labor laws, protection of women * ''Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus,'' : extension of copyright holder rights by use of licenses * ''Berea College v. Kentucky,'' : state laws and segregation of educational facilities * ''Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley'', : federal question jurisdiction * ''United States v. Grimaud,'' : control of forest reserves * ''Dowdell v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell,'' : extensions of patents by use of licenses, rights of copyright holder regarding “use” of copyrighted works * ''Ocampo v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Guinn v. United States,'' : unconstitutionality of Oklahoma's "grandfather law" used to disenfranchise African-American voters * ''Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization,'' : denial of due process procedural protections for legislative and rulemaking acts, as opposed to adjudicatory proceedings * ''Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad'' (1916): * ''Buchanan v. Warley,'' : unconstitutionality of local ordinance compelling racial segregation of residential housing * ''Hammer v. Dagenhart,'' : Congressional power to regulate child labor under the Commerce Clause * ''International News Service v. Associated Press,'' : property rights in news * ''Schenck v. United States,'' : freedom of speech, “clear and present danger”, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" * ''Abrams v. United States,'' : validity of criminalizing criticism of the government ==1920–1939== * ''Missouri v. Holland,'' : states’ rights * ''Balzac v. Porto Rico,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Federal Baseball Club v. National League,'' :, baseball and antitrust regulation * ''Moore v. Dempsey,'' : mob-dominated trials, federal writ of habeas corpus, due process * ''Adkins v. Children's Hospital,'' : freedom of contract, minimum wage laws * ''United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels (More or Less) Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar,'' : legality of misleading but factually accurate packaging statements under the Food and Drug Act * ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters,'' : privacy * ''Gitlow v. New York,'' : prosecution of seditious speech * ''Myers v. United States,'' : * ''Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.,'' : zoning, due process * ''Buck v. Bell,'' : compulsory sterilization, eugenics * ''Whitney v. California,'' : prosecution of criminal syndicalism * ''Gong Lum v. Rice,'' : admission of chinese girl to school for white children in Mississipi * ''Stromberg v. California,'' : * ''Near v. Minnesota,'' : freedom of speech, prior restraints * ''New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,'' : * ''Powell v. Alabama,'' : * ''Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,'' : delegation of authority, New Deal * ''Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States,'' : interstate commerce, New Deal * ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,'' : freedom of contract, minimum wage laws; “the switch in time that saved nine” * ''National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation,'' : interstate commerce; another consequence of “the switch in time that saved nine” * ''Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson,'' : * ''Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,'' : no general federal common law * ''United States v. Carolene Products Co.,'' : interstate commerce, substantive due process, and (in footnote four) equal protection * ''United States v. Miller,'' : ==1940–1959== * ''Chambers v. Florida,'' : * ''Edwards v. California,'' : Commerce clause * ''Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,'' : fighting words * ''Betts v. Brady,'' : * ''Skinner v. Oklahoma,'' : compulsory sterilization, eugenics * ''Wickard v. Filburn,'' : Commerce clause * ''West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion (Pledge of Allegiance) * ''Hirabayashi v. United States,'' * ''Smith v. Allwright,'' : voting rights, segregation * ''Korematsu v. United States,'' : internment of Japanese * ''International Shoe Co. v. Washington'', : personal jurisdiction of states over corporations in other states * ''Everson v. Board of Education,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion * ''Oyama v. California,'' : California Alien Land Laws, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution * ''Shelley v. Kraemer,'' : equal protection, racial covenants * ''United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,'' : Hollywood studios monopoly * ''United States v. National City Lines Inc.,'' : General Motors streetcar conspiracy * ''Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander,'' : due process (Fourteenth Amendment), Commerce clause * ''Wolf v. Colorado,'' : Fourteenth Amendment, state court, evidence from unreasonable search and seizure * ''Sweatt v. Painter,'' : segregation, separate but equal * ''McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents,'' : Fourteenth Amendment, segregation * ''Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB,'' : judicial review of agency decisions * ''Dennis v. United States,'' : First Amendment and the Smith Act * ''Rochin v. California,'' : restriction of police power * ''Zorach v. Clauson,'' : release time programs * ''Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,'' : presidential power to seize steel mills during strike to ensure wartime production * ''Toolson v. New York Yankees,'' : basebal and antitrust regulation * ''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas,'' : segregation, “separate inherently inequal” * ''Bolling v. Sharpe,'' : segregation in the District of Columbia * ''Berman v. Parker,'' : eminent domain, takings * ''Griffin v. Illinois,'' : access to court transcript for indigent appeals * ''Roth v. United States,'' : obscenity * ''NAACP v. Alabama,'' : freedom of association, privacy of membership lists * ''Speiser v. Randall,'' : * ''Smith v. California,'' : ==1960–1979== * ''Boynton v. Virginia,'' : racial segregation * ''McGowan v. Maryland,'' : constitutionality of laws with religious origins but secular purposes * ''Torcaso v. Watkins,'' : oaths, religious test, First Amendment * ''Mapp v. Ohio,'' : search and seizure, exclusionary rule * ''Baker v. Carr,'' : reapportionment issues * ''Engel v. Vitale,'' : school prayer * ''Gideon v. Wainwright,'' : right to counsel * ''Douglas v. California,'' : Fourteenth Amendment; right of poor defendants to criminal court appeals * ''Abington School District v. Schempp,'' : constitutionality of mandatory bible reading in public schools * ''Gray v. Sanders,'' : “one man, one vote” * ''Escobedo v. Illinois,'': right to remain silent * ''Wesberry v. Sanders,'' : “one man, one vote” * ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,'' : freedom of speech, libel * ''Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino'', : act of state doctrine applies to prevent federal court from holding invalid an act of a foreign country with respect to property within the foreign jurisdiction * ''Reynolds v. Sims,'' : “one man, one vote” (state senates) * ''Jacobellis v. Ohio'', : “I know [obscenity] when I see it[.]” – Justice Potter Stewart * ''Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States'', : interstate commerce, civil rights, public accommodations * ''United States v. Continental Can Co.'', : antitrust * ''Griswold v. Connecticut,'' : privacy, birth control * ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts,'' : obscenity * ''Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections,'' : * ''Miranda v. Arizona,'' : self-incrimination (“right to remain silent”) * ''In Re Gault,'' : due process, juveniles * ''Loving v. Virginia,'' : interracial marriage * ''United States v. Wade,'' : handwriting * ''Gilbert v. California,'' : handwriting * ''United States v. O'Brien,'' : free speech, burning draft cards * ''Terry v. Ohio,'' : search and seizure, power of police to stop and frisk suspicious persons * ''Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,'' : freedom of speech in public schools * ''Street v. New York,'' : * ''Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,'' : Fairness Doctrine, broadcast responsibilities, freedom of speech * ''Brandenburg v. Ohio,'' : freedom of speech, incitement to riot * ''Goldberg v. Kelly,'' : procedural due process, hearing requirement * ''Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York,'' : tax exemption for churches * ''Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,'' : employment discrimination; disparate effect of employer practices * ''Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,'' : busing authorized to establish school desegregation * ''Cohen v. California,'' : freedom of speech, fighting words/obscenity, “fuck the draft” * ''Lemon v. Kurtzman,'' : establishment of religion, schools, the “Lemon test” * ''New York Times Co. v. United States,'' : freedom of the press, national security, Pentagon Papers * ''Parisi v. Davidson,'' : conscientious objector status * ''Eisenstadt v. Baird,'' : privacy, birth control * ''Wisconsin v. Yoder,'' : freedom of religion, high school education * ''Flood v. Kuhn,'' : baseball and antitrust regulation * ''Furman v. Georgia,'' : death penalty, cruel and unusual punishment * ''Perry v. Sindermann,'' : First Amendment to the United States Constitution; defacto professor tenure * ''Branzburg v. Hayes,'' : First Amendment; grand jury, journalists’ rights * ''United States v. Dionisio,'' : handwriting * ''United States v. Mara aka Marasovich,'' : handwriting * ''Roe v. Wade,'' : abortion, due process, privacy * ''Miller v. California,'' : freedom of speech, Miller test for obscenity * ''Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,'' : freedom of speech * ''United States v. Nixon,'' : judicial review, executive privilege, separation of powers * ''Milliken v. Bradley,'' : segregation, busing * ''Gregg v. Georgia,'' : death penalty * ''Stump v. Sparkman,'' : judicial immunity * ''Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,'' : judicial deference to government agency * ''Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action * ''FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,'' : obscenity, Federal Communications Commission policing of obscenity ==1980–1999== * ''Diamond v. Chakrabarty,'' : patentability of genetically modified organisms * ''Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n,'' : freedom of speech (companies including information inserts with bills) * ''United States v. Lee,'' : religious opposition to participation in Social Security * ''Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico,'' : right to remove "objectionable" books from school libraries * ''Plyler v. Doe,'' : illegal immigrants and public education * ''Bob Jones University v. United States,'' : freedom of religion and tax exemptions * ''Michigan v. Long,'' : “Independent and adequate state ground” * ''Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,'' : copyright, VCR “time-shifting”, fair use * ''Lynch v. Donnelly,'' : public religious display on private property * ''Bernal v. Fainter,'' : citizenship of notary public * ''Chevron, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,'' : judicial review of the interpretation of statutes by government agency * ''Allen v. Wright'', : standing to sue for executive action alleged to promote racial discrimination by third parties * ''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,'' : application of minimum wage laws to state governments * ''Wallace v. Jaffree,'' : school sponsorship of voluntary religious observances * ''Thornton v. Calder,'' : constitutionality of Sabbath laws * ''Dowling v. United States,'' : copyright infringement as theft * ''Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind,'' : constitutionality of public aid paid directly to students of Christian colleges * ''Nix v. Whiteside,'' : attorney-client privilege * ''Batson v. Kentucky,'' : peremptory challenge, racial discrimination * ''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson,'' : sexual harassment * ''Bowers v. Hardwick,'' : sodomy and substantive due process; overruled by ''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003) * ''Bethel School District v. Fraser,'' : censorship of obscene speech at a school assembly * ''Turner v. Safley,'' : free speech and marriage rights of prison inmates * ''Edwards v. Aguillard,'' : constitutionality of mandating teaching of creation science in conjunction with theory of evolution * ''South Dakota v. Dole,'' : use of federal funding to encourage changes in state laws * ''Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,'' : freedom of speech in school newspaper * ''Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,'' : First Amendment; parody, emotional distress * ''Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA,'' : religious rights of Native American vs. public interest * ''Morrison v. Olson,'' : independent counsel's office * ''Thompson v. Oklahoma,'' :, Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; cruel and unusual punishment; capital punishment for juveniles under 16 * ''Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,'' : copyright, work for hire * ''Martin v. Wilks,'' : * ''Texas v. Johnson,'' : freedom of speech (flag burning) * ''Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,'' : abortion rights * ''Maryland v. Craig,'' : the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses * ''United States v. Eichman,'' : freedom of speech (flag burning) * ''Feist v. Rural,'' : creativity required for copyright protection * ''R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul,'' : fighting words, hate speech * ''Lee v. Weisman,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion (prayer at high school graduations) * ''Planned Parenthood v. Casey,'' : abortion * ''United States Department of Justice v. Landano,'' : Freedom of Information Act and confidentiality. * ''Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,'' : animal cruelty, freedom of religion * ''Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,'' : access by religious groups to public school facilities * ''Alexander v. United States,'' : * ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,'' : the Daubert Standard on the admissibility of the opinion of the expert witness. * ''Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,'' : copyright, commercial fair use is possible, parody * ''United States v. Shabani,'' : elements of criminal conspiracy (i.e., requirement for an overt act) * ''United States v. Lopez,'' : interstate commerce, gun-free school zones * ''Adarand Constructors v. Peña,'' : constitutionality of race-based set-asides (strict scrutiny test) * ''Rosenberger v. University of Virginia,'' : discrimination by state universities against student religious organizations * ''Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,'' : reasonable public school drug testing is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendments * ''44 Liquormart, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island,'' : restrictions on promotion of alcohol * ''Romer v. Evans,'' : equal protection, homosexuality * ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,'' : free speech, obscenity, Communications Decency Act * ''Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,'' : applicability of sexual harassment laws to homosexuality harassment * ''Hunt v. Cromartie,'' : gerrymandering * ''Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,'' : sovereign immunity of the states ==2000–present== === Decided and reported === ''Some of the cases in this section have not yet been assigned an official United States Reports citation (e.g., 537 U.S. 186). Those cases use one of the following citations: Supreme Court Reporter (___ S.Ct. ___); Supreme Courts Reports, Lawyer's Edition (___ L.Ed. ___) [http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catalog?action=product&prod_id=7134]; or U.S. Law Week [http://www.bna.com/products/lit/uslw.htm#formatslink]. See Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions for additional guidance. * ''United States v. Morrison,'' : * ''Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,'' : right of free association, homosexuality * ''Bush v. Gore,'' : vote recounts in presidential election * ''Easley v. Cromartie,'' : racial discrimination, gerrymandering * ''Republican Party of Minnesota v. White,'' : election of state judges, freedom of speech * ''Eldred v. Ashcroft,'' : copyright duration * ''Gratz v. Bollinger,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action, equal protection * ''Grutter v. Bollinger,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action, equal protection * ''Lawrence v. Texas,'' : liberty, due process, homosexuality * ''McConnell v. FEC,'' : First Amendment; political speech * ''Doe v. Chao,'' : governmental violation of privacy rights * ''Crawford v. Washington,'' : out-of-court statements === Decided, but not yet reported === ''The cases in this section are recently decided and have not yet been published in a reporter. They are identified using their Supreme Court docket number. The date listed is the date of decision'' * (6/7/04) ''Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-891 124 S.Ct. 2230] (2004): an ambiguity in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act * (6/7/04) ''Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-358 124 S.Ct. 2204] (2004): Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions * (6/14/04) ''United States v. Dominguez Benitez,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-167 124 S.Ct. 2333] (2004): responsibility of a defendant in the case of a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 * (6/14/04) ''Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1624 542 U.S. __] (2004): validity of “under God” in Pledge of Allegiance; standing to bring suit on another’s behalf. * (6/21/04) ''Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-572 542 U.S. __] (2004): foreign tribunals * (6/21/04) ''Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554 542 U.S. __] (2004): constitutionality of state law requiring citizens to identify themselves to police. * (6/24/04) ''Blakely v. Washington,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1632 542 U.S. __] (2004): right to jury trial, judge-enhanced criminal sentences * (6/28/04) ''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696 542 U.S. __] (2004): detention of American citizens * (6/28/04) ''Rasul v. Bush,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334 542 U.S. __] (2004): jurisdiction over foreign nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay * (6/28/04) ''Rumsfeld v. Padilla,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1027 124 S.Ct. 2230] (2004): detention of American citizens * (1/12/05) ''United States v. Booker,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-104 542 U. S. __] (2005): Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences in federal courts * (3/1/05) ''Roper v. Simmons,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-104 543 U. S. __] (2005): Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; cruel and unusual punishment; capital punishment for juveniles under 18 (compare ''Thompson v. Oklahoma'' from #1980–1999) * (3/2/05) ''Tenet v. Doe,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1395 544 U. S. __] (2005): enforceability of contracts between the government and spies (undercover CIA agents) * (4/26/05) ''Small v. United States'' (2005): resolution of split appeals court decisions on inclusion of foreign courts in the term “any court” * (5/31/05) ''Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States'' (2005): legality of document destruction in the face of likely government investigation * (6/6/05) ''Gonzales v. Raich'' (2004): legitimacy of using marijuana as a medicine, and power of the federal government to regulate intrastate activities. * (2/28/05) ''Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'' (2005): applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to foreign-held companies * (2/22/05) ''Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.'' (2005): eminent domain; takings of private property for private development === Not yet decided === ''The following is a partial list of cases awaiting decisions. The first number on each line is that case's docket number. The date listed before each case is that of the most recent oral arguments for each case. Transcripts of recently argued cases are available from the [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html Court's website].'' * (3/02/05) ''McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky'' (2005): constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display; potential reformulation of the Lemon test * (3/02/05) ''Van Orden v. Perry'' (2005): legality of a Ten Commandments display * (3/22/05) ''Tory v. Cochran'' (2005): preenjoinment of free speech * (3/27/05) ''MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.'' (2005): Copyright infringement in P2P file-sharing; re-examination of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios * (TBD) ''Stewart v. United States'' (2005): applicability of Commerce Clause in criminalizing private homemade automatic firearms * (4/20/05 - scheduled) ''Merck v. Integra'' U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court cases United States case law United States legal history Case law lists
For guidance on editing articles listed on this page see Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases. ---- ==Complete list of Supreme Court cases?== There is a document (PDF) at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf where they have listed all Supreme Court cases between 1791 and 1882. I do not have a sense, yet, of when it good to have a complete list of something on WP. I was thinking of making a "complete list" page that I would link to from this page. Any reactions? :This is way too much information for Wikipedia. We need landmark decisions from the Supreme Court, significant cases or famous cases; we don't need every case listed here. There are 190 pages of cases listed there, and that is only the first 90 years of the Supreme Court when it was a relatively unhurried docket! I do not think this is a good idea at all; this material could make up its own encyclopedia; maybe someday when there is nothing else to do at Wikipedia in fifty years or so people may be proposing such activities, but now it would be better to go and create short case briefs on all the cases that are already listed on the page IMHO. Regarding just making a page linking to it, I don't think that is important either. I would just put the Supreme Court link somewhere; most people who know or go to that site know what is there. User:Alex756 22:00, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) I don't know, I think a complete list might be good, I know it would be quite a lot of work, but almost definitionally anything decided by the supreme court is significant and notable. User:Mark Richards 18:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Wikifying key concepts== I like the idea of wikifying key concepts - I think it adds a lot to the page. I don't like bolding the cases - since they're the first thing on the line, they stand out easily already. --User:Raul654 20:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) I'm ambivalent about the bolding, it's not in keeping with the manual of style, but since it's just this year's cases I guess I see the reasoning behind it. On the other hand it would have to be repaired every year. - User:Hephaestos 21:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) I found that the cases didn't stand out enough for me when I didn't make them bold, so I decided to try that. For now I've left a mixture, so people can compare the bold and non-bold effects. If people like it, I'd make every case bold - if I did it for one year only, it was an accident. I'll wikify soem more of the key words, since that appears to be well accepted initially, and we'll see if there's agreement about bold for the cases or not. User:JamesDay 23:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) == Citation style == The standard citation style seems to be VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (or similarly for pre-''United States Reports'' reports of decisions) but here it is generally written VVV U.S. PPP YYYY. Would it be worth updating the entire page to use the standard citations? (For that matter, it would be a bit of an exercise to dig up proper citations for all of the cases here, but if they are truly important, then it should be easy to find them in on-line references.) User:18.24.0.120 06:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) Please feel free to change any you notice to the normal citation style, as well as adding any citations you notice are missing. User:Jamesday 15:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know this is belated to the conversation, but I am currently updating every case (on the case's page) on the list to reflect a uniform citation of: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY). This is how citations read in Supreme Court dockets with the exception of the underlining of the case code. I will eventually update every case (on the list page) with the citations. My plan would be to make the list format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY)- followed by the appropriate subject the case concerns. I won't be updating the list page until I have finished properly citing every case page, so if anyone has any comments on my proposed format, please let me know. User:Skyler1534 17:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) :I don't know yet whether I think underlining the reporter volume and page enhances readability, but it is not the proper format in legal writing, whether academic or in actual legal documents. I'm not sure what the general wikipedia policy on this is, but I don't think formal accuracy should ever be sacrificed, even for readability. There are different citation formats within different state jurisdictions—some put the year before the reporter, etc.—but none that I am aware of underline the reporter, and federal courts, most states, and the Blue Book use ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (though the case name may be underlined rather than italicized). This is what we should use. User:Postdlf 13:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::I might sacrifice some formal accuracy (if by that is meant something like Blue Book conformity) for readability in an extreme case, but this isn't such a case. There's no reason to depart from the standard format. I agree with Postdlf's format except that I might not always wikilink the year -- I don't believe that wikilinking every mention of a year accomplishes anything. Whether to link a particular year depends on the context in the article. User:JamesMLane 14:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::I agree. I just do it every now and then because others seem to like it, but I personally don't have much use for all the year links either. User:Postdlf 14:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I pretty much agree with JamesMLane and Postdlf here. I don't really see that the underlining does anything to enhance readability (in fact, I'd argue that underlining almost always detracts from readability). Linking years in a list is largely pointless, though the year should be linked in articles (at least the first occurence). 15:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) *:I am currently in the middle of a long project (check my contributions) to overhaul every case article on the list for uniformity. I am adding "The Bench" section to show who was on the bench and which way they voted to every article once I am done formatting the case citations on each case article and then on this list. I have been using my format proposed above with the underlined portion in response to the fact that contributors were adding case citations to the list and putting them in bold, which I thought made it less readable. I have gone through roughly half the case articles on the list and reformatted, but I would be happy to change them to format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) if I could get a consensus from the Wikipedians who commonly contribute to the supreme court case articles. I still think the year should be wikilinked as it is the common practice for many Wikipedians and it does not hurt anything. I will continue conversation on my projects (through the different waves) on this page and any feedback would be very much appreciated. I am trying to create uniformity, not ruffle feathers. User:Skyler1534 15:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) :::The most obvious way to create uniformity would be to follow the practice that's most common in the profession (and will therefore be most familiar to any lawyers contributing to the articles) and which is also the format used by the U.S. Supreme Court (and will therefore be most familiar to nonlawyers reading those decisions, which are the ones most likely to be written up or mentioned). We might vary from that standard format if there were a reason specific to Wikipedia to do so, but I haven't seen any such reason. User:JamesMLane 02:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I've already gone through all the citations I had formatted that way and changed them to common format, but thanks for the feedback. User:Skyler1534 14:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) == User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP == I would like to start some sort of group of like-minded Wikipedians who regularly contribute to these types of articles so that we could create uniformity among the articles and also significantly reduce the number of stubs and red links out there. I haven't figured out the best way of how to form such a group yet (or if anyone is even interested), but anyone who fits this profile and would like to help with this project, please feel free to add feedback and new ideas to this talk page for now. If I gather enough interest, I may have to move further discussion to a personal page, but we'll see how it goes. (P.S.- You don't need to be a legal or constitutional scholar to help with this. Those of you who read these articles and fix little things regularly are very much needed, too, because expanding the stubs will undoubtably cause of grammatical and wikifying errors. I know who you are, because I see your contributions often and they are much appreciated.) Thanks for your attention and interest. User:Skyler1534 14:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) I have formatted and checked the case citations for every case article up to and including Edwards v. California. Once I am done the rest of the list, I will be adding the case citations to the list itself. After that, I'll be attempting to add "The Bench" section to every article I can find the information for (see Branzburg v. Hayes for an example of that section). If any of my fellow Wikipedians who regularly contribute to the Supreme Court case articles have any comments, I would be very open to hearing them. User:Skyler1534 14:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Update: This project now has an User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP and a couple of other contributors. The Supreme Court case articles should be changing more rapidly now. Any Wikipedian who would like to help with the project will be very much welcomed. Anyone who doesn't want to help, but takes an interest in these articles is also encouraged to check out the Project page and give their opinions and comments on how things are going on the User_talk:Skyler1534/United_States_Supreme_Court_Case_Article_Improvement_Project. User:Skyler1534 20:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) == Icch!! Why the underlining? == Is there are reason for underlining the short descriptions of the cases? It looks really bad, IMO. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 19:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :I agree. I also would not underline case names. Underlining is correctly used instead of italics in material prepared on a typewriter that can't create italics. Underlining is also sometimes used instead of italics by people who are used to seeing case names underlined; as word processing spreads, this style will die out. Underlined italics for case names is a style that I can't remember ever seeing anywhere else. User:JamesMLane 19:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Wow. You guys are really quick. The case names must be underlined as they are Wikilinked and that's what most browser's do to links. Everything else is fair game. I underlined the type of case so that it would stand out from the rest. And by the way, anyone who comments on or watches this list may be interested in the User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP, which actually has a real page and a few members besides me now. Check it out. User:Skyler1534 20:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :::You're quick yourself -- I realized that the underlining was a consequence of the wikilinking and came back here to correct myself, but I was too late. :( User:JamesMLane 20:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) == How should case citations on the list be formatted? == I'm looking for the opinion of Wikipedians involved with this list on how the list should be formatted. I have gone through every article up to year 2000 on the list, so now I am formatted the list, itself. I am checking every citation and year to make sure they are correct and checking the way the name is listed against how it is listed on Lexis-Nexis to make sure the case names are listed as they are commonly known. However, there are three different ways to format the list. # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case As shown, the main points are whether to wikilink the years and whether to underline the type of case. Personally, I think # 4 looks the best. However, it has been said that the years should not be wikilinked for the list as they are in regular articles, so I would vote for # 2. Opinions are needed as I am revamping the entire list. Please comment. User:Skyler1534 19:56, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :My preference is for # 1. Wikilinking the years seems to accomplish nothing. Someone compiling a general timeline of events of 1954 who goes to 1954 and selects "What links here" will find ''Brown v. Board of Education'' listed. Why would that person also need to find this list? Why would a reader of this list be likely to want an easy way to go to 1954? The 1954 article gives you some context for that decision, such as that Eisenhower was President, but no one would look for that kind of background before going to the ''Brown'' article itself. Furthermore, to my eye a wikilinked year tends to blend in with the case name. The case name will stand out better if the year is plain text. As for the underlining, I find it distracting. User:JamesMLane 20:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) :1 for much the same reasoning as JML. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 20:18, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) ::So you would both agree that the 1820-1839 (and now the 1790-1819 section) looks good? For now, I am going to continue on with that format. I will be changing the entire list to this format, though, so if you have any comments about the way the list reads now (i.e. the bolded case citations), please let me know now as it will cost me less time later. Thanks! User:Skyler1534 20:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :::Yes, although I would not be surprised if someone comes along sooner or later and links all the years anyhow. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 20:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) ::::I agree. User:JamesMLane 21:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, that's what the User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP is for. If someone comes along and does something and there is a consensus among regular contributors to these articles that what was done was not in the Project's best interests, it will be reversed. It's all about making it better and keeping it better with as much harmony in the community as possible. User:Skyler1534 21:55, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) After we worked out the formatting, User:Italo Svevo has edited the list to insert the template for the citations, which has the effect of making links out of the citation and the year. I think this decreases readability. The previous format gave the wikilink to the article on the case, which is where the link to the text should be. That would also be the appropriate place for any links to years. I think we should return the list to the format it's had for the last several months, the one adopted pursuant to the discussion above. User:JamesMLane 00:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I think the use of the template is a good idea, but perhaps the template could be edited so it didn't link the year. --User:Arcadian 03:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I've gone ahead and edited the template -- this may address your concerns. --User:Arcadian 04:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :What is the standard for uniquely identifying cases that don't have a volume/page number assigned yet? --User:Arcadian 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: I've partially reverted Arcadian's edits of the template. He had done more than just unlink the year: he unlinked the citation and shifted the citation to a footnote link before the citation. This was very awkward for the actual case articles, and pretty awkward for this page. I suggest that if we want to use the footnote format for this page, we should create a separate template. User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 02:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :::That would be an improvement, but why do we need to use ''any'' template on this page? I thought it was perfectly OK the way it was. I prefer the format in which only the case name is a link. That makes it clearest to the reader. To answer Arcadian's question about cases with no official volume and page yet: The standard is to use the Supreme Court reporter if that citation is available; if it isn't, then the next choice would be the Lawyers' Edition citation; then finally the U.S. Law Week citation. User:JamesMLane 07:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::: What is the format for the Lawyers' Edition and U.S. Law Week citations and where do we find them? Thanks. User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 05:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) :::::Here are the rules that I remember for citations in the old-fashioned media (briefs, judicial decisions, and law review articles): The Lawyers' Edition format would be, for example, 79 L.Ed.2d 213 (1981). (I just made those numbers up. I don't know whether a case really starts there or whether the volume number and the year match. I haven't happened to use this source in a long time.) It's printed by a private company, as is the Supreme Court Reporter. Both of them issue paperback supplements to stay current, with bound volumes following later. These paper editions would be available in law libraries. They probably have an online version you can subscribe to. U.S. Law Week is published as a looseleaf service so, back when I was doing federal research, it was usually more current than the Lawyers' Edition or the Supreme Court Reporter, which in turn were more current than the official reporter. It also is available in paper in libraries or through online subscription ([http://www.bnataxmanagement.com/current/lw1/index.html]). Format would be 73 U.S.L.W. 1040 (2005) or maybe 73 USLW 1040 (2005); I'd have to look up whether you include the periods. The bottom line is that these sources generally won't be very readily available. :::::As an online resource, though, we might as well use FindLaw when available. As an example, I see that FindLaw already has last week's decision in ''Roper'', so it's pretty current. If you're referring to ''Roper'', and you happen to have the S. Ct., L.Ed.2d, or USLW citation, fine, include it, but if you don't, I'd go with: ''Roper v. Simmons'', ___ U.S. ___ (Mar. 1, 2005) ([http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-633]). (As you see, I would carry over the "old-fashioned" rule that a citation that's not to a printed source should give the date of the decision. In fact, the ''Bluebook'' format for citing USLW may also call for including the date; that's another point I don't remember.) User:JamesMLane 12:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) === Intro text for 2000 decade cases === User:Arcadian added an introductory paragraph to the section List of United States Supreme Court cases#2000–present. The new paragraph stated that some of the cases in that list used alternative citations to the Supreme Court Reporter citation. However, none of items on that list actually use one of those citations. I therefore commented out that section until and unless some of the cases use the alternative citations. I also improved the formatting of that intro text (so that it would be improved if and when the commenting is removed). Arcadian reverted my changes, saying that I had deleted the intro text, and that I should improve it rather than delete it. Since I ''had'' improved the text, and had ''not'' deleted it, I reverted to my version. If Arcadian reverts again, I won't revert myself, but I think that, in that case, my updated version of the intro should be used. — User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 16:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) : I've got no interest in a revert war -- you've done a lot of great work on these pages, and I think our disagreement is minor and semantic. So let me take a step back here and state my larger goals, and I'll stay out of editing the page for the next few days or so. By the way, I am not a lawyer, so if I misuse any of the terms here, please forgive me. : According to my understanding of Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions, it recommends using the docket number for unpublished decisions. However, that's not what's being done on this page, and it seems like different people are using different approaches to the issue. It also looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases doesn't seem to offer guidance here. : I'm morally neutral as to what the approach should be, but whatever the approach is, it should be documented somewhere easily visible to people adding new cases to the page. (I do understand that you didn't *delete* the explanation, you just commented it out, but I'm not sure that everybody who adds things to this page is going to read all the commented-out sections before doing so.) : Judging from the talk page, User:JamesMLane seems to have the most expertise of anyone who has chimed in on this, so I'd lean towards defering to his judgement until/unless we've got a good reason not to. If that's the direction we're going, then we should document that on the page, even if people aren't yet doing it. Or, if you don't believe his recommendation is what people should do, I'm okay with that as well, but in that case, please put your own recommendation somewhere on the page, so people know what they should do. Or maybe we could just add a link to Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions at the top of the section instead. In any case, I'll defer to your judgement, and I will refrain from editing the page until April at least. --User:Arcadian 17:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Okay, I've lived up to my end. :) I've stayed out of it until April. But it doesn't look like anybody else has chimed in. So, this is what I'm going to do for now -- I'll uncomment the paragraph at the top of the 2000 decade cases, and also include a link to Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions. I understand this will be confusing and contradictory for a while, but this problem has been here for months and I don't see any other way to resolve it, other than to be as transparent about it as possible. However, I'm still open to other perspectives. --User:Arcadian 16:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084 == I can't seem to find Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084. Is that my mistake, or is it not listed? I'm trying to find places to link Uniao do Vegetal from, as their currently before the court (AFAIK). ''User:Sam Spade'' 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases:
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Cases
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
List of United States Supreme Court Cases
#REDIRECT List of United States Supreme Court cases
List of United States Supreme Court cases
This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. ==1790–1819== * ''Chisholm v. Georgia,'' : first “major” case; federal jurisdiction over suits vs. states * ''Marbury v. Madison,'' : judicial review of laws enacted by Congress * ''Stuart v. Laird,'' : enforceability of rulings issued by judges who have since been removed from office * ''Ex Parte Bollman,'' : habeas corpus, definition of treason, Supreme Court’s power to issue writs to circuit courts * ''Fletcher v. Peck,'' : property rights * ''Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,'' : Loyalist (American Revolution) property forfeiture, Supreme Court review of state court judgments * ''McCulloch v. Maryland,'' : doctrine of implied powers * ''Dartmouth College v. Woodward,'' : impairment of contracts ==1820–1839== * ''Cohens v. Virginia,'' : judicial review of state supreme court decisions * ''Gibbons v. Ogden,'' : Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce * ''Ogden v. Saunders,'' : state bankruptcy law * ''Cherokee Nation v. Georgia,'' : Indian nations as foreign states * ''Worcester v. Georgia,'' : Indian removal * ''Barron v. Baltimore,'' : reach of the Bill of Rights * ''Wheaton v. Peters,'' : copyright perpetuity; Common law copyright ==1840–1859== * ''The Amistad,'' : slave trade and slave ownership (see Amistad) * ''Prigg v. Pennsylvania,'' : runaway slaves * ''Cooley v. Board of Wardens'', : pilotage laws * ''Dred Scott v. Sandford,'' : slavery, citizenship ==1860–1879== * ''Prize Cases,'' : presidential powers in wartime * ''Ex Parte Milligan,'' : habeas corpus, military tribunals * ''Ex Parte Garland,'' : retroactive civil disability for former Confederate officers * ''Ex Parte McCardle,'' : congressional power to limit Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction * ''Texas v. White,'' : constitutionality of state secession * ''United States v. Klein,'' : separation of powers * ''Slaughterhouse Cases,'' : freedom of employment * ''Bradwell v. Illinois,'' : equal protection, exclusion of women from employment * ''Minor v. Happersett,'' : Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the right to vote * ''Totten v. United States,'' : jurisdiction over espionage agreements * ''United States v. Cruikshank,'' : application of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Second Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendments to the states * ''Munn v. Illinois,'' : corporations and agricultural regulation * ''Reynolds v. United States,'' : polygamy and freedom of religion ==1880–1899== * ''Strauder v. West Virginia,'' : exclusion of blacks from juries * ''Civil Rights Cases,'' : power of federal government to prohibit racial discrimination by private parties * ''Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony,'' : copyrightability of photographs * ''Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad,'' : corporate personhood * ''Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railroad Company v. Illinois,'' : regulation of interstate commerce by individual states, creation of ICC * ''Dent v. West Virginia,'' : state licensing of doctors * ''Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad v. Minnesota,'' : states and railway fees * ''Nix v. Hedden,'' : status of the tomato as fruit or vegetable * ''United States v. E. C. Knight Co.,'' : antitrust action; “Sugar Trust Case” * ''Coffin v. United States,'' : the presumption of innocence. * ''In re Debs,'' : strikes and interstate commerce * ''Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,'' : income tax and tariffs * ''Plessy v. Ferguson,'' : segregation; “separate but equal” * ''United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association,'' : railroads and rate fixing * ''Holden v. Hardy,'' : * ''United States v. Wong Kim Ark,'' : citizenship and race * ''Hawker v. New York,'' : character and doctor’s licenses * ''Williams v. Mississippi,'' : literacy tests * ''Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education,'' : segregation in public schools ==1900–1919== * ''Marks v. Shoup,'' : Property issues * ''Insular Cases,'' (numerous) constitutional status of Puerto Rico and the Philippines **''DeLima v. Bidwell,'' : **''Goetze v. United States,'' : **''Armstrong v. United States,'' : **''Downes v. Bidwell,'' : **''Huus v. New York & Porto Rico S.S. Co.,'' : **''Dooley v. United States,'' : **''Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States,'' : * ''Hawaii v. Manikichi,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Kepner v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Dorr v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Gonzales v. Williams,'' : Puerto Ricans and illegal aliens * ''Rasmussen v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Lochner v. New York,'' : freedom of contract, substantive due process * ''Hale v. Henkel,'' : witness testimony in antitrust cases * ''Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Riggs,'' : * ''Adair v. United States,'' : "Yellow Dog contract" * ''Muller v. Oregon,'' : protective labor laws, protection of women * ''Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus,'' : extension of copyright holder rights by use of licenses * ''Berea College v. Kentucky,'' : state laws and segregation of educational facilities * ''Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley'', : federal question jurisdiction * ''United States v. Grimaud,'' : control of forest reserves * ''Dowdell v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell,'' : extensions of patents by use of licenses, rights of copyright holder regarding “use” of copyrighted works * ''Ocampo v. United States,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Guinn v. United States,'' : unconstitutionality of Oklahoma's "grandfather law" used to disenfranchise African-American voters * ''Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization,'' : denial of due process procedural protections for legislative and rulemaking acts, as opposed to adjudicatory proceedings * ''Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad'' (1916): * ''Buchanan v. Warley,'' : unconstitutionality of local ordinance compelling racial segregation of residential housing * ''Hammer v. Dagenhart,'' : Congressional power to regulate child labor under the Commerce Clause * ''International News Service v. Associated Press,'' : property rights in news * ''Schenck v. United States,'' : freedom of speech, “clear and present danger”, "shouting fire in a crowded theater" * ''Abrams v. United States,'' : validity of criminalizing criticism of the government ==1920–1939== * ''Missouri v. Holland,'' : states’ rights * ''Balzac v. Porto Rico,'' :, sometimes considered one of the Insular Cases * ''Federal Baseball Club v. National League,'' :, baseball and antitrust regulation * ''Moore v. Dempsey,'' : mob-dominated trials, federal writ of habeas corpus, due process * ''Adkins v. Children's Hospital,'' : freedom of contract, minimum wage laws * ''United States v. Ninety-Five Barrels (More or Less) Alleged Apple Cider Vinegar,'' : legality of misleading but factually accurate packaging statements under the Food and Drug Act * ''Pierce v. Society of Sisters,'' : privacy * ''Gitlow v. New York,'' : prosecution of seditious speech * ''Myers v. United States,'' : * ''Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.,'' : zoning, due process * ''Buck v. Bell,'' : compulsory sterilization, eugenics * ''Whitney v. California,'' : prosecution of criminal syndicalism * ''Gong Lum v. Rice,'' : admission of chinese girl to school for white children in Mississipi * ''Stromberg v. California,'' : * ''Near v. Minnesota,'' : freedom of speech, prior restraints * ''New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,'' : * ''Powell v. Alabama,'' : * ''Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan,'' : delegation of authority, New Deal * ''Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States,'' : interstate commerce, New Deal * ''West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,'' : freedom of contract, minimum wage laws; “the switch in time that saved nine” * ''National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation,'' : interstate commerce; another consequence of “the switch in time that saved nine” * ''Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson,'' : * ''Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,'' : no general federal common law * ''United States v. Carolene Products Co.,'' : interstate commerce, substantive due process, and (in footnote four) equal protection * ''United States v. Miller,'' : ==1940–1959== * ''Chambers v. Florida,'' : * ''Edwards v. California,'' : Commerce clause * ''Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,'' : fighting words * ''Betts v. Brady,'' : * ''Skinner v. Oklahoma,'' : compulsory sterilization, eugenics * ''Wickard v. Filburn,'' : Commerce clause * ''West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion (Pledge of Allegiance) * ''Hirabayashi v. United States,'' * ''Smith v. Allwright,'' : voting rights, segregation * ''Korematsu v. United States,'' : internment of Japanese * ''International Shoe Co. v. Washington'', : personal jurisdiction of states over corporations in other states * ''Everson v. Board of Education,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion * ''Oyama v. California,'' : California Alien Land Laws, equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution * ''Shelley v. Kraemer,'' : equal protection, racial covenants * ''United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.,'' : Hollywood studios monopoly * ''United States v. National City Lines Inc.,'' : General Motors streetcar conspiracy * ''Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander,'' : due process (Fourteenth Amendment), Commerce clause * ''Wolf v. Colorado,'' : Fourteenth Amendment, state court, evidence from unreasonable search and seizure * ''Sweatt v. Painter,'' : segregation, separate but equal * ''McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents,'' : Fourteenth Amendment, segregation * ''Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB,'' : judicial review of agency decisions * ''Dennis v. United States,'' : First Amendment and the Smith Act * ''Rochin v. California,'' : restriction of police power * ''Zorach v. Clauson,'' : release time programs * ''Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,'' : presidential power to seize steel mills during strike to ensure wartime production * ''Toolson v. New York Yankees,'' : basebal and antitrust regulation * ''Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas,'' : segregation, “separate inherently inequal” * ''Bolling v. Sharpe,'' : segregation in the District of Columbia * ''Berman v. Parker,'' : eminent domain, takings * ''Griffin v. Illinois,'' : access to court transcript for indigent appeals * ''Roth v. United States,'' : obscenity * ''NAACP v. Alabama,'' : freedom of association, privacy of membership lists * ''Speiser v. Randall,'' : * ''Smith v. California,'' : ==1960–1979== * ''Boynton v. Virginia,'' : racial segregation * ''McGowan v. Maryland,'' : constitutionality of laws with religious origins but secular purposes * ''Torcaso v. Watkins,'' : oaths, religious test, First Amendment * ''Mapp v. Ohio,'' : search and seizure, exclusionary rule * ''Baker v. Carr,'' : reapportionment issues * ''Engel v. Vitale,'' : school prayer * ''Gideon v. Wainwright,'' : right to counsel * ''Douglas v. California,'' : Fourteenth Amendment; right of poor defendants to criminal court appeals * ''Abington School District v. Schempp,'' : constitutionality of mandatory bible reading in public schools * ''Gray v. Sanders,'' : “one man, one vote” * ''Escobedo v. Illinois,'': right to remain silent * ''Wesberry v. Sanders,'' : “one man, one vote” * ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan,'' : freedom of speech, libel * ''Banco National de Cuba v. Sabbatino'', : act of state doctrine applies to prevent federal court from holding invalid an act of a foreign country with respect to property within the foreign jurisdiction * ''Reynolds v. Sims,'' : “one man, one vote” (state senates) * ''Jacobellis v. Ohio'', : “I know [obscenity] when I see it[.]” – Justice Potter Stewart * ''Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States'', : interstate commerce, civil rights, public accommodations * ''United States v. Continental Can Co.'', : antitrust * ''Griswold v. Connecticut,'' : privacy, birth control * ''Memoirs v. Massachusetts,'' : obscenity * ''Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections,'' : * ''Miranda v. Arizona,'' : self-incrimination (“right to remain silent”) * ''In Re Gault,'' : due process, juveniles * ''Loving v. Virginia,'' : interracial marriage * ''United States v. Wade,'' : handwriting * ''Gilbert v. California,'' : handwriting * ''United States v. O'Brien,'' : free speech, burning draft cards * ''Terry v. Ohio,'' : search and seizure, power of police to stop and frisk suspicious persons * ''Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,'' : freedom of speech in public schools * ''Street v. New York,'' : * ''Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC,'' : Fairness Doctrine, broadcast responsibilities, freedom of speech * ''Brandenburg v. Ohio,'' : freedom of speech, incitement to riot * ''Goldberg v. Kelly,'' : procedural due process, hearing requirement * ''Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York,'' : tax exemption for churches * ''Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,'' : employment discrimination; disparate effect of employer practices * ''Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education,'' : busing authorized to establish school desegregation * ''Cohen v. California,'' : freedom of speech, fighting words/obscenity, “fuck the draft” * ''Lemon v. Kurtzman,'' : establishment of religion, schools, the “Lemon test” * ''New York Times Co. v. United States,'' : freedom of the press, national security, Pentagon Papers * ''Parisi v. Davidson,'' : conscientious objector status * ''Eisenstadt v. Baird,'' : privacy, birth control * ''Wisconsin v. Yoder,'' : freedom of religion, high school education * ''Flood v. Kuhn,'' : baseball and antitrust regulation * ''Furman v. Georgia,'' : death penalty, cruel and unusual punishment * ''Perry v. Sindermann,'' : First Amendment to the United States Constitution; defacto professor tenure * ''Branzburg v. Hayes,'' : First Amendment; grand jury, journalists’ rights * ''United States v. Dionisio,'' : handwriting * ''United States v. Mara aka Marasovich,'' : handwriting * ''Roe v. Wade,'' : abortion, due process, privacy * ''Miller v. California,'' : freedom of speech, Miller test for obscenity * ''Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo,'' : freedom of speech * ''United States v. Nixon,'' : judicial review, executive privilege, separation of powers * ''Milliken v. Bradley,'' : segregation, busing * ''Gregg v. Georgia,'' : death penalty * ''Stump v. Sparkman,'' : judicial immunity * ''Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,'' : judicial deference to government agency * ''Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action * ''FCC v. Pacifica Foundation,'' : obscenity, Federal Communications Commission policing of obscenity ==1980–1999== * ''Diamond v. Chakrabarty,'' : patentability of genetically modified organisms * ''Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n,'' : freedom of speech (companies including information inserts with bills) * ''United States v. Lee,'' : religious opposition to participation in Social Security * ''Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico,'' : right to remove "objectionable" books from school libraries * ''Plyler v. Doe,'' : illegal immigrants and public education * ''Bob Jones University v. United States,'' : freedom of religion and tax exemptions * ''Michigan v. Long,'' : “Independent and adequate state ground” * ''Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,'' : copyright, VCR “time-shifting”, fair use * ''Lynch v. Donnelly,'' : public religious display on private property * ''Bernal v. Fainter,'' : citizenship of notary public * ''Chevron, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,'' : judicial review of the interpretation of statutes by government agency * ''Allen v. Wright'', : standing to sue for executive action alleged to promote racial discrimination by third parties * ''Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,'' : application of minimum wage laws to state governments * ''Wallace v. Jaffree,'' : school sponsorship of voluntary religious observances * ''Thornton v. Calder,'' : constitutionality of Sabbath laws * ''Dowling v. United States,'' : copyright infringement as theft * ''Witters v. Washington Department of Services For the Blind,'' : constitutionality of public aid paid directly to students of Christian colleges * ''Nix v. Whiteside,'' : attorney-client privilege * ''Batson v. Kentucky,'' : peremptory challenge, racial discrimination * ''Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson,'' : sexual harassment * ''Bowers v. Hardwick,'' : sodomy and substantive due process; overruled by ''Lawrence v. Texas'' (2003) * ''Bethel School District v. Fraser,'' : censorship of obscene speech at a school assembly * ''Turner v. Safley,'' : free speech and marriage rights of prison inmates * ''Edwards v. Aguillard,'' : constitutionality of mandating teaching of creation science in conjunction with theory of evolution * ''South Dakota v. Dole,'' : use of federal funding to encourage changes in state laws * ''Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,'' : freedom of speech in school newspaper * ''Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,'' : First Amendment; parody, emotional distress * ''Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA,'' : religious rights of Native American vs. public interest * ''Morrison v. Olson,'' : independent counsel's office * ''Thompson v. Oklahoma,'' :, Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; cruel and unusual punishment; capital punishment for juveniles under 16 * ''Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid,'' : copyright, work for hire * ''Martin v. Wilks,'' : * ''Texas v. Johnson,'' : freedom of speech (flag burning) * ''Webster v. Reproductive Health Services,'' : abortion rights * ''Maryland v. Craig,'' : the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses * ''United States v. Eichman,'' : freedom of speech (flag burning) * ''Feist v. Rural,'' : creativity required for copyright protection * ''R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul,'' : fighting words, hate speech * ''Lee v. Weisman,'' : First Amendment, establishment of religion (prayer at high school graduations) * ''Planned Parenthood v. Casey,'' : abortion * ''United States Department of Justice v. Landano,'' : Freedom of Information Act and confidentiality. * ''Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,'' : animal cruelty, freedom of religion * ''Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District,'' : access by religious groups to public school facilities * ''Alexander v. United States,'' : * ''Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,'' : the Daubert Standard on the admissibility of the opinion of the expert witness. * ''Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music,'' : copyright, commercial fair use is possible, parody * ''United States v. Shabani,'' : elements of criminal conspiracy (i.e., requirement for an overt act) * ''United States v. Lopez,'' : interstate commerce, gun-free school zones * ''Adarand Constructors v. Peña,'' : constitutionality of race-based set-asides (strict scrutiny test) * ''Rosenberger v. University of Virginia,'' : discrimination by state universities against student religious organizations * ''Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,'' : reasonable public school drug testing is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Amendments * ''44 Liquormart, Inc. v. State of Rhode Island,'' : restrictions on promotion of alcohol * ''Romer v. Evans,'' : equal protection, homosexuality * ''Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,'' : free speech, obscenity, Communications Decency Act * ''Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,'' : applicability of sexual harassment laws to homosexuality harassment * ''Hunt v. Cromartie,'' : gerrymandering * ''Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank,'' : sovereign immunity of the states ==2000–present== === Decided and reported === ''Some of the cases in this section have not yet been assigned an official United States Reports citation (e.g., 537 U.S. 186). Those cases use one of the following citations: Supreme Court Reporter (___ S.Ct. ___); Supreme Courts Reports, Lawyer's Edition (___ L.Ed. ___) [http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catalog?action=product&prod_id=7134]; or U.S. Law Week [http://www.bna.com/products/lit/uslw.htm#formatslink]. See Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions for additional guidance. * ''United States v. Morrison,'' : * ''Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,'' : right of free association, homosexuality * ''Bush v. Gore,'' : vote recounts in presidential election * ''Easley v. Cromartie,'' : racial discrimination, gerrymandering * ''Republican Party of Minnesota v. White,'' : election of state judges, freedom of speech * ''Eldred v. Ashcroft,'' : copyright duration * ''Gratz v. Bollinger,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action, equal protection * ''Grutter v. Bollinger,'' : racial discrimination, affirmative action, equal protection * ''Lawrence v. Texas,'' : liberty, due process, homosexuality * ''McConnell v. FEC,'' : First Amendment; political speech * ''Doe v. Chao,'' : governmental violation of privacy rights * ''Crawford v. Washington,'' : out-of-court statements === Decided, but not yet reported === ''The cases in this section are recently decided and have not yet been published in a reporter. They are identified using their Supreme Court docket number. The date listed is the date of decision'' * (6/7/04) ''Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-891 124 S.Ct. 2230] (2004): an ambiguity in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act * (6/7/04) ''Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-358 124 S.Ct. 2204] (2004): Presidential foreign affairs and foreign trade actions * (6/14/04) ''United States v. Dominguez Benitez,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-167 124 S.Ct. 2333] (2004): responsibility of a defendant in the case of a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 * (6/14/04) ''Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1624 542 U.S. __] (2004): validity of “under God” in Pledge of Allegiance; standing to bring suit on another’s behalf. * (6/21/04) ''Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-572 542 U.S. __] (2004): foreign tribunals * (6/21/04) ''Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-5554 542 U.S. __] (2004): constitutionality of state law requiring citizens to identify themselves to police. * (6/24/04) ''Blakely v. Washington,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-1632 542 U.S. __] (2004): right to jury trial, judge-enhanced criminal sentences * (6/28/04) ''Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-6696 542 U.S. __] (2004): detention of American citizens * (6/28/04) ''Rasul v. Bush,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-334 542 U.S. __] (2004): jurisdiction over foreign nationals detained in Guantanamo Bay * (6/28/04) ''Rumsfeld v. Padilla,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1027 124 S.Ct. 2230] (2004): detention of American citizens * (1/12/05) ''United States v. Booker,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-104 542 U. S. __] (2005): Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution; constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences in federal courts * (3/1/05) ''Roper v. Simmons,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-104 543 U. S. __] (2005): Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution; cruel and unusual punishment; capital punishment for juveniles under 18 (compare ''Thompson v. Oklahoma'' from #1980–1999) * (3/2/05) ''Tenet v. Doe,'' [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1395 544 U. S. __] (2005): enforceability of contracts between the government and spies (undercover CIA agents) * (4/26/05) ''Small v. United States'' (2005): resolution of split appeals court decisions on inclusion of foreign courts in the term “any court” * (5/31/05) ''Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States'' (2005): legality of document destruction in the face of likely government investigation * (6/6/05) ''Gonzales v. Raich'' (2004): legitimacy of using marijuana as a medicine, and power of the federal government to regulate intrastate activities. * (2/28/05) ''Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.'' (2005): applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to foreign-held companies * (2/22/05) ''Susette Kelo et al. v. City of New London et al.'' (2005): eminent domain; takings of private property for private development === Not yet decided === ''The following is a partial list of cases awaiting decisions. The first number on each line is that case's docket number. The date listed before each case is that of the most recent oral arguments for each case. Transcripts of recently argued cases are available from the [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html Court's website].'' * (3/02/05) ''McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky'' (2005): constitutionality of a Ten Commandments display; potential reformulation of the Lemon test * (3/02/05) ''Van Orden v. Perry'' (2005): legality of a Ten Commandments display * (3/22/05) ''Tory v. Cochran'' (2005): preenjoinment of free speech * (3/27/05) ''MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.'' (2005): Copyright infringement in P2P file-sharing; re-examination of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios * (TBD) ''Stewart v. United States'' (2005): applicability of Commerce Clause in criminalizing private homemade automatic firearms * (4/20/05 - scheduled) ''Merck v. Integra'' U.S. Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court cases United States case law United States legal history Case law lists
List of United States Supreme Court cases
For guidance on editing articles listed on this page see Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases. ---- ==Complete list of Supreme Court cases?== There is a document (PDF) at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf where they have listed all Supreme Court cases between 1791 and 1882. I do not have a sense, yet, of when it good to have a complete list of something on WP. I was thinking of making a "complete list" page that I would link to from this page. Any reactions? :This is way too much information for Wikipedia. We need landmark decisions from the Supreme Court, significant cases or famous cases; we don't need every case listed here. There are 190 pages of cases listed there, and that is only the first 90 years of the Supreme Court when it was a relatively unhurried docket! I do not think this is a good idea at all; this material could make up its own encyclopedia; maybe someday when there is nothing else to do at Wikipedia in fifty years or so people may be proposing such activities, but now it would be better to go and create short case briefs on all the cases that are already listed on the page IMHO. Regarding just making a page linking to it, I don't think that is important either. I would just put the Supreme Court link somewhere; most people who know or go to that site know what is there. User:Alex756 22:00, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC) I don't know, I think a complete list might be good, I know it would be quite a lot of work, but almost definitionally anything decided by the supreme court is significant and notable. User:Mark Richards 18:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC) ==Wikifying key concepts== I like the idea of wikifying key concepts - I think it adds a lot to the page. I don't like bolding the cases - since they're the first thing on the line, they stand out easily already. --User:Raul654 20:36, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) I'm ambivalent about the bolding, it's not in keeping with the manual of style, but since it's just this year's cases I guess I see the reasoning behind it. On the other hand it would have to be repaired every year. - User:Hephaestos 21:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) I found that the cases didn't stand out enough for me when I didn't make them bold, so I decided to try that. For now I've left a mixture, so people can compare the bold and non-bold effects. If people like it, I'd make every case bold - if I did it for one year only, it was an accident. I'll wikify soem more of the key words, since that appears to be well accepted initially, and we'll see if there's agreement about bold for the cases or not. User:JamesDay 23:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC) == Citation style == The standard citation style seems to be VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (or similarly for pre-''United States Reports'' reports of decisions) but here it is generally written VVV U.S. PPP YYYY. Would it be worth updating the entire page to use the standard citations? (For that matter, it would be a bit of an exercise to dig up proper citations for all of the cases here, but if they are truly important, then it should be easy to find them in on-line references.) User:18.24.0.120 06:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) Please feel free to change any you notice to the normal citation style, as well as adding any citations you notice are missing. User:Jamesday 15:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I know this is belated to the conversation, but I am currently updating every case (on the case's page) on the list to reflect a uniform citation of: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY). This is how citations read in Supreme Court dockets with the exception of the underlining of the case code. I will eventually update every case (on the list page) with the citations. My plan would be to make the list format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY)- followed by the appropriate subject the case concerns. I won't be updating the list page until I have finished properly citing every case page, so if anyone has any comments on my proposed format, please let me know. User:Skyler1534 17:04, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) :I don't know yet whether I think underlining the reporter volume and page enhances readability, but it is not the proper format in legal writing, whether academic or in actual legal documents. I'm not sure what the general wikipedia policy on this is, but I don't think formal accuracy should ever be sacrificed, even for readability. There are different citation formats within different state jurisdictions—some put the year before the reporter, etc.—but none that I am aware of underline the reporter, and federal courts, most states, and the Blue Book use ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) (though the case name may be underlined rather than italicized). This is what we should use. User:Postdlf 13:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::I might sacrifice some formal accuracy (if by that is meant something like Blue Book conformity) for readability in an extreme case, but this isn't such a case. There's no reason to depart from the standard format. I agree with Postdlf's format except that I might not always wikilink the year -- I don't believe that wikilinking every mention of a year accomplishes anything. Whether to link a particular year depends on the context in the article. User:JamesMLane 14:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) :::I agree. I just do it every now and then because others seem to like it, but I personally don't have much use for all the year links either. User:Postdlf 14:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I pretty much agree with JamesMLane and Postdlf here. I don't really see that the underlining does anything to enhance readability (in fact, I'd argue that underlining almost always detracts from readability). Linking years in a list is largely pointless, though the year should be linked in articles (at least the first occurence). 15:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) *:I am currently in the middle of a long project (check my contributions) to overhaul every case article on the list for uniformity. I am adding "The Bench" section to show who was on the bench and which way they voted to every article once I am done formatting the case citations on each case article and then on this list. I have been using my format proposed above with the underlined portion in response to the fact that contributors were adding case citations to the list and putting them in bold, which I thought made it less readable. I have gone through roughly half the case articles on the list and reformatted, but I would be happy to change them to format: ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY) if I could get a consensus from the Wikipedians who commonly contribute to the supreme court case articles. I still think the year should be wikilinked as it is the common practice for many Wikipedians and it does not hurt anything. I will continue conversation on my projects (through the different waves) on this page and any feedback would be very much appreciated. I am trying to create uniformity, not ruffle feathers. User:Skyler1534 15:03, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) :::The most obvious way to create uniformity would be to follow the practice that's most common in the profession (and will therefore be most familiar to any lawyers contributing to the articles) and which is also the format used by the U.S. Supreme Court (and will therefore be most familiar to nonlawyers reading those decisions, which are the ones most likely to be written up or mentioned). We might vary from that standard format if there were a reason specific to Wikipedia to do so, but I haven't seen any such reason. User:JamesMLane 02:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) ::::I've already gone through all the citations I had formatted that way and changed them to common format, but thanks for the feedback. User:Skyler1534 14:01, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) == User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP == I would like to start some sort of group of like-minded Wikipedians who regularly contribute to these types of articles so that we could create uniformity among the articles and also significantly reduce the number of stubs and red links out there. I haven't figured out the best way of how to form such a group yet (or if anyone is even interested), but anyone who fits this profile and would like to help with this project, please feel free to add feedback and new ideas to this talk page for now. If I gather enough interest, I may have to move further discussion to a personal page, but we'll see how it goes. (P.S.- You don't need to be a legal or constitutional scholar to help with this. Those of you who read these articles and fix little things regularly are very much needed, too, because expanding the stubs will undoubtably cause of grammatical and wikifying errors. I know who you are, because I see your contributions often and they are much appreciated.) Thanks for your attention and interest. User:Skyler1534 14:06, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC) I have formatted and checked the case citations for every case article up to and including Edwards v. California. Once I am done the rest of the list, I will be adding the case citations to the list itself. After that, I'll be attempting to add "The Bench" section to every article I can find the information for (see Branzburg v. Hayes for an example of that section). If any of my fellow Wikipedians who regularly contribute to the Supreme Court case articles have any comments, I would be very open to hearing them. User:Skyler1534 14:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
Update: This project now has an User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP and a couple of other contributors. The Supreme Court case articles should be changing more rapidly now. Any Wikipedian who would like to help with the project will be very much welcomed. Anyone who doesn't want to help, but takes an interest in these articles is also encouraged to check out the Project page and give their opinions and comments on how things are going on the User_talk:Skyler1534/United_States_Supreme_Court_Case_Article_Improvement_Project. User:Skyler1534 20:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) == Icch!! Why the underlining? == Is there are reason for underlining the short descriptions of the cases? It looks really bad, IMO. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 19:47, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :I agree. I also would not underline case names. Underlining is correctly used instead of italics in material prepared on a typewriter that can't create italics. Underlining is also sometimes used instead of italics by people who are used to seeing case names underlined; as word processing spreads, this style will die out. Underlined italics for case names is a style that I can't remember ever seeing anywhere else. User:JamesMLane 19:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Wow. You guys are really quick. The case names must be underlined as they are Wikilinked and that's what most browser's do to links. Everything else is fair game. I underlined the type of case so that it would stand out from the rest. And by the way, anyone who comments on or watches this list may be interested in the User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP, which actually has a real page and a few members besides me now. Check it out. User:Skyler1534 20:05, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :::You're quick yourself -- I realized that the underlining was a consequence of the wikilinking and came back here to correct myself, but I was too late. :( User:JamesMLane 20:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) == How should case citations on the list be formatted? == I'm looking for the opinion of Wikipedians involved with this list on how the list should be formatted. I have gone through every article up to year 2000 on the list, so now I am formatted the list, itself. I am checking every citation and year to make sure they are correct and checking the way the name is listed against how it is listed on Lexis-Nexis to make sure the case names are listed as they are commonly known. However, there are three different ways to format the list. # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case # ''Name v. Name'', VVV U.S. PPP (YYYY): type of case As shown, the main points are whether to wikilink the years and whether to underline the type of case. Personally, I think # 4 looks the best. However, it has been said that the years should not be wikilinked for the list as they are in regular articles, so I would vote for # 2. Opinions are needed as I am revamping the entire list. Please comment. User:Skyler1534 19:56, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :My preference is for # 1. Wikilinking the years seems to accomplish nothing. Someone compiling a general timeline of events of 1954 who goes to 1954 and selects "What links here" will find ''Brown v. Board of Education'' listed. Why would that person also need to find this list? Why would a reader of this list be likely to want an easy way to go to 1954? The 1954 article gives you some context for that decision, such as that Eisenhower was President, but no one would look for that kind of background before going to the ''Brown'' article itself. Furthermore, to my eye a wikilinked year tends to blend in with the case name. The case name will stand out better if the year is plain text. As for the underlining, I find it distracting. User:JamesMLane 20:15, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) :1 for much the same reasoning as JML. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 20:18, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) ::So you would both agree that the 1820-1839 (and now the 1790-1819 section) looks good? For now, I am going to continue on with that format. I will be changing the entire list to this format, though, so if you have any comments about the way the list reads now (i.e. the bolded case citations), please let me know now as it will cost me less time later. Thanks! User:Skyler1534 20:41, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) :::Yes, although I would not be surprised if someone comes along sooner or later and links all the years anyhow. User:Bkonrad≠User talk:Bkonrad 20:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) ::::I agree. User:JamesMLane 21:02, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, that's what the User:Skyler1534/USSCCAIP is for. If someone comes along and does something and there is a consensus among regular contributors to these articles that what was done was not in the Project's best interests, it will be reversed. It's all about making it better and keeping it better with as much harmony in the community as possible. User:Skyler1534 21:55, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) After we worked out the formatting, User:Italo Svevo has edited the list to insert the template for the citations, which has the effect of making links out of the citation and the year. I think this decreases readability. The previous format gave the wikilink to the article on the case, which is where the link to the text should be. That would also be the appropriate place for any links to years. I think we should return the list to the format it's had for the last several months, the one adopted pursuant to the discussion above. User:JamesMLane 00:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I think the use of the template is a good idea, but perhaps the template could be edited so it didn't link the year. --User:Arcadian 03:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :I've gone ahead and edited the template -- this may address your concerns. --User:Arcadian 04:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :What is the standard for uniquely identifying cases that don't have a volume/page number assigned yet? --User:Arcadian 12:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) :: I've partially reverted Arcadian's edits of the template. He had done more than just unlink the year: he unlinked the citation and shifted the citation to a footnote link before the citation. This was very awkward for the actual case articles, and pretty awkward for this page. I suggest that if we want to use the footnote format for this page, we should create a separate template. User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 02:15, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC) :::That would be an improvement, but why do we need to use ''any'' template on this page? I thought it was perfectly OK the way it was. I prefer the format in which only the case name is a link. That makes it clearest to the reader. To answer Arcadian's question about cases with no official volume and page yet: The standard is to use the Supreme Court reporter if that citation is available; if it isn't, then the next choice would be the Lawyers' Edition citation; then finally the U.S. Law Week citation. User:JamesMLane 07:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) :::: What is the format for the Lawyers' Edition and U.S. Law Week citations and where do we find them? Thanks. User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 05:22, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) :::::Here are the rules that I remember for citations in the old-fashioned media (briefs, judicial decisions, and law review articles): The Lawyers' Edition format would be, for example, 79 L.Ed.2d 213 (1981). (I just made those numbers up. I don't know whether a case really starts there or whether the volume number and the year match. I haven't happened to use this source in a long time.) It's printed by a private company, as is the Supreme Court Reporter. Both of them issue paperback supplements to stay current, with bound volumes following later. These paper editions would be available in law libraries. They probably have an online version you can subscribe to. U.S. Law Week is published as a looseleaf service so, back when I was doing federal research, it was usually more current than the Lawyers' Edition or the Supreme Court Reporter, which in turn were more current than the official reporter. It also is available in paper in libraries or through online subscription ([http://www.bnataxmanagement.com/current/lw1/index.html]). Format would be 73 U.S.L.W. 1040 (2005) or maybe 73 USLW 1040 (2005); I'd have to look up whether you include the periods. The bottom line is that these sources generally won't be very readily available. :::::As an online resource, though, we might as well use FindLaw when available. As an example, I see that FindLaw already has last week's decision in ''Roper'', so it's pretty current. If you're referring to ''Roper'', and you happen to have the S. Ct., L.Ed.2d, or USLW citation, fine, include it, but if you don't, I'd go with: ''Roper v. Simmons'', ___ U.S. ___ (Mar. 1, 2005) ([http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-633]). (As you see, I would carry over the "old-fashioned" rule that a citation that's not to a printed source should give the date of the decision. In fact, the ''Bluebook'' format for citing USLW may also call for including the date; that's another point I don't remember.) User:JamesMLane 12:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) === Intro text for 2000 decade cases === User:Arcadian added an introductory paragraph to the section List of United States Supreme Court cases#2000–present. The new paragraph stated that some of the cases in that list used alternative citations to the Supreme Court Reporter citation. However, none of items on that list actually use one of those citations. I therefore commented out that section until and unless some of the cases use the alternative citations. I also improved the formatting of that intro text (so that it would be improved if and when the commenting is removed). Arcadian reverted my changes, saying that I had deleted the intro text, and that I should improve it rather than delete it. Since I ''had'' improved the text, and had ''not'' deleted it, I reverted to my version. If Arcadian reverts again, I won't revert myself, but I think that, in that case, my updated version of the intro should be used. — User:Mateo SA | User talk:Mateo SA 16:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC) : I've got no interest in a revert war -- you've done a lot of great work on these pages, and I think our disagreement is minor and semantic. So let me take a step back here and state my larger goals, and I'll stay out of editing the page for the next few days or so. By the way, I am not a lawyer, so if I misuse any of the terms here, please forgive me. : According to my understanding of Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions, it recommends using the docket number for unpublished decisions. However, that's not what's being done on this page, and it seems like different people are using different approaches to the issue. It also looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases doesn't seem to offer guidance here. : I'm morally neutral as to what the approach should be, but whatever the approach is, it should be documented somewhere easily visible to people adding new cases to the page. (I do understand that you didn't *delete* the explanation, you just commented it out, but I'm not sure that everybody who adds things to this page is going to read all the commented-out sections before doing so.) : Judging from the talk page, User:JamesMLane seems to have the most expertise of anyone who has chimed in on this, so I'd lean towards defering to his judgement until/unless we've got a good reason not to. If that's the direction we're going, then we should document that on the page, even if people aren't yet doing it. Or, if you don't believe his recommendation is what people should do, I'm okay with that as well, but in that case, please put your own recommendation somewhere on the page, so people know what they should do. Or maybe we could just add a link to Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions at the top of the section instead. In any case, I'll defer to your judgement, and I will refrain from editing the page until April at least. --User:Arcadian 17:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) : Okay, I've lived up to my end. :) I've stayed out of it until April. But it doesn't look like anybody else has chimed in. So, this is what I'm going to do for now -- I'll uncomment the paragraph at the top of the 2000 decade cases, and also include a link to Court_citation#Unpublished_decisions. I understand this will be confusing and contradictory for a while, but this problem has been here for months and I don't see any other way to resolve it, other than to be as transparent about it as possible. However, I'm still open to other perspectives. --User:Arcadian 16:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084 == I can't seem to find Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084. Is that my mistake, or is it not listed? I'm trying to find places to link Uniao do Vegetal from, as their currently before the court (AFAIK). ''User:Sam Spade'' 23:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
L
LA | LB | LC | LD | LE | LF | LG | LH | LI | LJ | LK | LM | LN | LO | LP | LR | LS | LT | LU | LW | LX | LY | LZ |Words begining with List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases:
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_Cases
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
