-
-
Functus officio
Task performed
-
Immunity
Freedom from lawful duties
-
-
Indemnify
secure against loss
-
Injunction
Writ restraining a person from doing acts deemed unjust or harmful to others
-
In pari materia
Upon the same matter or subject
-
-
Inter alia
Among other things
-
Interlocutory
Incident to a suit pending
-
IP'SO FACTO
by the very act itself
-
-
-
Jus commune
Natural rule of the right
-
-
Mandamus
Judicial writ ordering the doing of which is a legal duty
-
Ministerial duty
Definite duty
-
Nol'le Prose'Qui
Unwilling to prosecute
-
No'lo Conten'Dere
No contest
-
Parens patriae
Guardianship over minors, insane persons, or incompetent
-
Per curiam
Opinion made by whole bench
-
-
Plaintiff-in-error
One who sues out a writ of error to a judgment
-
-
Prerogative writ
Process by which mandamus to review an adminstrative determination
-
Prima Facie Evidence
Collection of facts that draw a conclusion
-
Pro forma
As a matter of fact
-
Propio vigore
By its own force
-
-
Quo Warranto
title of public officer or franchise is tested
-
-
-
Sovereign Immunity
Nation or state cannot be sued
-
Special verdict
Jury's special finding of the facts
-
Subpoean duces tecum
witness attends with documents as evidence
-
-
-
-
Voir dire
Examination of jurors
-
Terminello V. Chicago
Facts: Terminello was giving a speech inside a building. Alomost started a riot outside and he was arrestted.
Ruling: Terminello was found not guilty because he did not direct his speech to anyone. Clear and present danger test used to dertermine if this speech produced evil.
-
Feiner V. New York
Facts: Feiner was speaking in the streets on behave of some black men who were convicted. He called mayor a bum and a large crowd formed. He was arrested for disturbing the peace.
Ruling: Court upheld lower court's decision saying his speech in public was dangerous. This was clear and present danger.
-
imforma pauperis
State would pay to have this heard in Superem Court
-
Dennis V. US
Smith Act punishes anyone who teaches or advocates the overthrow of the government by force.
Facts: Dennis was arrestted for forming a communist party to overthrow US government.
Ruling: Judge Hand said this was clear and probable danger saying that the group were working towards overthrowing the government and plotting to. Smith Act upheld.
-
Brandenburg V. Ohio
US overturned Dennis V. in this case using De Facto. Person cannot be punished unless what they are doing will result in violations of law.
-
Cohen V. CA
Facts: Cohen wore a jacket into a courtroom that said "Fuck the draft." Lower court said his jacket was lud and disturbed the peace.
Ruling: Overturned and said that CA violated 1st and 14th amendments.
-
Texas V. Johnson
Facts: Johnson gives a distastful speech about America and then burns the flag. He was arrestted for flag burning.
Ruling: Overturned; strict scunity test used. Johnson did not disturb the peace and Texas flag buring laws prohibt expressive speech. This leads to the 1989 flag protection act, which was overturned because it was unconstitiounal.
-
RAV V. St. Paul
Facts: RAV burned a cross in a family's yard and said some racial things that St. Paul had on a list of other words as fighting words. Case was about St. Paul classifing certain words as fighting words.
Ruling: Superme Court ruled that St. Paul's ordanance is unconstituional becauseit limits peoples words. It was subject matter classification.
-
Brandenburg V. Ohio
Facts: Brandenburg was planning a Klan meeting saying things about Jews and blacks
Ruling: Justice Brennan said that the Klan does not present clear and present danger and he also mentions the Imminent lawless test; unless speech creates a situation of imminent lawless than speech is protected.
-
Wisconsin V. Mitchell
Facts: A guy told a group of black guys to beat up this white guy for no reason. The guy who encoarged the fighting was arrestted because he promoted the fight.
Ruling: Supereme Court agreed with the lower court that the guy's speech cause the fight.
-
Virginia V. Black
Facts: Black had a Klan ralley on private property and was arestted for burning a cross.
Ruling: Supreme Court ruled that you can burn a cross as long as it does not threaten anyone and it is on private property
-
Stanley V. Georgia
Facts: Officers found films in Stanley's bedroom and they were found obscene. He was arestted for the material.
Ruling: Having obscene material in private possession is permitted.
-
Miller V. CA
Facts: Miller was mailing sexual material to people who didn't request it.
Ruling: Miller test made saying that work would be taken as a whole appearing to prurient intrest, it has sexual content and has some kind of scientfic or political value. Average person uses contempoary standards to find work offensive.
-
Paris Adult Theatre V. Slaton
Facts: Sued for showing obscene films
Ruling: Obscene material is not protected
-
Jenkins V. Georgia
Facts: Convicted for showing the movie Carnal Knowledge in a motion picture thearte.
Ruling: The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards.
-
New York V. Ferber
Facts: Ferber is guilty of having childern act in pornography.
Ruling: Miller test does not have to be used when childern are involved in underaged sexual acts. Court upheld Ferber's conviction.
-
Pope V. Illinoise
Facts: Pope sold obscene magazines to police and arestted for selling of these items.
Ruling: The proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious value in the allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole.
-
Barnes V. Glen Theatre
Facts: Thearte said nude dancing in private place was protected by first amendmemt rights.
Ruling: Indiana's public indecency law to prevent totally nude dancing does not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.
-
City of Erie V. Pap's AM
Facts: Pap said that ordances requiring nude dancers to wear miminal clothing violated freedom of speech and expression.
Ruling: nude dancing of the type at issue here is expressive conduct that falls within the outer ambit of the First Amendment's protection.
-
Reno V. ACLU
Facts: Is child pornography protected under the 1st and 5th amendment.
Ruling: The Court has the right to protect minors from seeing obscene images on the web.
-
New York Times V. US
- Facts: "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials
- belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam.
Ruling: Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case
-
Hustler V. Faldwell
Facts: Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement, modeled after an actual ad campaign, claiming that Falwell, had a drunken incestuous relationship with his mother in an outhouse.
Ruling: Court held that public figures, such as Jerry Falwell, may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication had actual malice.
-
US V. Eichman
Facts: Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy.
- Ruling: Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of
- such expression.
-
3 tests used for obscenity
Hicklin: Under this test, judges considered a work to be obscene if any portion of the material had a tendency "to or corrupt minds who are open to such influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
- Roth: whether to the average person, applying
- contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
-
Battista V. US
Facts: Defendants violated the obscenity law by transporting the film Deepthoart across interstate commerce lines
Ruling: Film can be banned for its content.
-
Lawrence V. Texas
Facts: Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct.
Ruling: The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.
-
Obscentiy tests 2
Hicklin test: "whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences."
Roth test: as material whose "dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest" to the "average person, applying contemporary community standards.
|
|