Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
private possession of obscene material protected under First Amendment Street v. New York: 394 U.S. 576 (1969) free speech, flag burning: Shapiro v. Thompson: 394 U.S. 618 (1969) Right to travel: Leary v. United States: 395 U.S. 6 (1969) Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 ruled unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment: Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ...
Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court's docket. ... Also the Fifth Amendment. Minder v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 (1902)
United States due process case law (4 C, 43 P) United States equal protection case law (1 C, 222 P) United States Fifth Amendment self-incrimination case law (1 C, 56 P)
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an ...
Horne v. Department of Agriculture, 569 U.S. 513 (2013) ("Horne I"); 576 U.S. 351 (2015) ("Horne II"), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court issued two decisions regarding the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 (1947), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Its decision is part of a long line of cases that eventually led to the Selective Incorporation Doctrine.
Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Self-incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment and the meaning of “testimonial” under the 5th Amendment. A drunk-driving suspect, Muniz, made several incriminating statements while in police custody, and the Supreme Court held that only one of these statements was ...
United States v. James Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (1985) was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause is not violated if a federal defendant is found guilty by a trial jury without having found "all" parts of an indictment proved.