Search results
People also ask
Which court cases shaped legal history?
What are the most famous Supreme Court decisions?
What are the most important Supreme Court cases?
Which Supreme Court cases are in the Supreme Court case library?
- Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (4-0 decision) Established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review over Congress.
- McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision) Established the federal government's implied powers over the states.
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision) Denied citizenship to African American slaves.
- Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (7-1 decision) Upheld "separate but equal" segregation laws in states.
List of landmark court decisions in the United States. The following landmark court decisions in the United States contains landmark court decisions which changed the interpretation of existing law in the United States. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:
Jun 30, 2023 · 47 landmark Supreme Court cases that changed American life as we knew it. James Pasley , Lloyd Lee, and Lauren Frias. Updated. Jun 30, 2023, 9:35 AM PDT. Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new ...
- The O.J. Simpson trial-Murder. Watch this video on YouTube. Simpson trial which took place in 1995, is one of the most well-known criminal prosecutions in American history.
- Madison v. Marbury 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 1803-Judicial Review. In this case, President John Adams appointed William Marbury to be a justice of the peace, but James Madison, the new secretary of state, refused to give him his appointment until President Thomas Jefferson assumed office.
- Donoghue v. Stevenson 1932 AC 562- Dead snail. Watch this video on YouTube. This case is regarded as a seminal one in the field of negligence law or tort depending on the jurisdiction of a country.
- Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 1973-Abortion rights. Watch this video on YouTube. In Roe v. Wade, one of the parties, Norma McCorvey, posing as “Jane Roe,” requested an abortion in Texas, United Statesbut was turned down because of state laws that forbade abortions other than those necessary to save the mother’s life.
- The Case of Proclamations, 1610
- Entick V Carrington, 1765
- R V Dudley and Stephens, 1884
- Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Co, 1893
- Donoghue and Stevenson, 1932
- Fagan V Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 1969
- R V R, 1991
- The Belmarsh Case, 2004
Over 400 years ago, the chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, ruled thatKing James I could not prohibit new building in London without the support of parliament. King James believed that he had a divine right to make any laws that he wished. But the court opposed his view, and decided that the monarchy could not wield its power in this arbitrary way. By ...
Author and schoolmaster John Entick was suspected of writing a libellous pamphlet against the government. In response, the secretary of state sent Nathan Carrington, along with a group of other king’s men, to search Entick’s house for evidence. Entick then sued the men for trespass. The court decided thatthe secretary of state did not have the lega...
In this case, the survivors of a shipwreck who killed and ate the youngest and weakest crew member were prosecuted for murder. Their defence was based on “necessity” – that they needed to eat the boy, as they were unlikely to survive and the boy probably would have died anyway. It may have been a “custom of the sea”that cannibalism was allowed unde...
Mrs Carlill sued the manufacturerof the carbolic smoke ball – a device for preventing colds and flu – which had promised a reward of £100 for any one catching flu following the use of its product but then refused to pay out. The court decided that this promise, together with Mrs Carlill’s use of the product as directed, amounted to a legally bindin...
In a case originating in Scotland, Mrs Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer which allegedly containedthe decomposed remains of a snail. She claimed to have suffered shock and gastroenteritis as a result. But as she had not bought the drink herself, she had no contract on which to sue. Nevertheless, the court extended the lawof negligence to r...
To be guilty of a criminal offence, there often needs to be unlawful act accompanied by a guilty state of mind, such as a criminal intent. So, having accidentally driven his car onto a policeman’s foot, did Mr Fagan commit an assault when he decided not to remove it? Mr Fagan suggested not because he had no criminal intent at the time the car first...
The law is constantly evolving to meet changing social attitudes. In this case, the House of Lords swept away the common law rule that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. The previous rule was based on a 1736 pronouncement that: The House of Lords ruled thatfor modern times, marriage is a partnership of equals and any other suggestion was...
The Human Rights Act empowered judges to review acts of parliament, to check if they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Using this power, the House of Lords ruled thata statute which allowed terrorist suspects to be detained indefinitely without trial breached the suspects’ human rights. The caseshows how modern courts ask...
- Nicholas Clapham
Participate in interactive landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped history and have an impact on law-abiding citizens today.
The Supreme Court Cases Library includes materials on the most influential Supreme Court cases in American history.
