Pols Cases set 1

studied byStudied by 81 people
5.0(2)
get a hint
hint

Sweatt v. Painter

1 / 21

Tags and Description

22 Terms

1

Sweatt v. Painter

  1. UT violated 14th Amendment (Equal protection clause/Seperate but equal)

  2. About equlity fo enrollment in state university

  3. Sweatt Wins

New cards
2

Hernandez v. Texas

  1. Texas violates the 6th (Right to a speedy and fair trial) and 14th Amendment (Equal protections clause)

  2. Supreme Court overturns initial verdict, and Hernandez is retired with a fair jurry (Right to jury selection) (Still convicted)

New cards
3

Terry v. Adams

  1. Adams (Jaybirds) were a private voting organization violating the 15th Amendment (Right to vote for all)

  2. Supreme court ruled even private organizations for voting have to follow constitutional rules.

New cards
4

Ruiz v. Estelle

  1. Ruiz cites dangerous living conditions inside of prison, that violates 8th amendment (no cruel or unusual punishment)

  2. Ruiz wins, brings prison reform to texas (95% capacity rule/Seperation of violent and non-violent crimes)

New cards
5

Roe v. Wade

  1. privacy issue, right for women to choose what to do with thier bodies.

  2. established the 3-trimester rule.

New cards
6

Dobbs v. Jackson WHO

  1. Overturned Roe v. Wade, said the right to abortion is not covered in the constitution, and is a states issue.

New cards
7

SAISD v. Rodriguez

  1. SAISD claims distribution of funds in unfair, and violaes the 14th (Equal protection clause)

  2. Supreme court renforces that education is a state's issue not a federal issue.

New cards
8

Jurek v. Texas

  1. Called Death penalty as against the 8th amendment (No cruel and unusual punishment)

  2. Supreme court decided it didnt violate the 8th

New cards
9

Plyler v. Doe

  1. Texas was withholding funds for schools who educated illigal aliens

  2. Supreme court ruled that this violates the 14th Amen. (Equal protection clause)

New cards
10

Texas v. Borwn

  1. Established the "plain veiw doctrine."

  2. does not violate the 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure)

New cards
11

Carmell v. Texas

  1. Supreme court ruled that the amended clause could not be used to convict someone, this would be a violaion of "Ex-Post Facto"

New cards
12

Penry v. Johnson

  1. Jury should have access to mitigating evidence (Info. that might lessen a sentance) regarding mental capacity.

New cards
13

Lawrance & Garner v. Texas

  1. Ruled that Texas' "Homosexual Conduct Law" was unconstitutional and violated the 14th amendment.

  2. Possible quote "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual".

New cards
14

Rothgery v. Gillespie County

  1. court is required to provide a counsel to the defendant regardless of the presence of a prosecutor, this is your 6th amendment right, wich the 5th circuit court denied Rothgery

New cards
15

leal Garcia v. Texas

  1. due process clause does not prohibit a state from carrying out lawful judgment

New cards
16

Salinas v. Texas

The 5th Amendment right is not inherently given, it must be proclaimed "i plead the fith"

New cards
17

Walker v. Texas SCV Inc.

  1. Texas SCV claimed the DMV was infringing on their 1st (freedom of speech) and 14th (Equal protection clause) amendment rights by refusing to print confederate license plates.

  2. Government ruled that Licesnplates are government speech and thusly more easily regulated and restricted

New cards
18

Fisher v. University of Texas

Admissions may be put through a strict scrutiny test, but admission based on race does not violate the 14th amendment (Equal protection clause)

New cards
19

Evenwel v. Abbott

  1. allowed to create districts based on population not voter eligibility (Total pop. not voter pop.)

New cards
20

Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt

  1. Ruled that you can not put an undue burden on women exercising their right to an abortion

New cards
21

Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis

  1. Davis claimed religious discrimination under title 7, but Supreme Court ruled she must exhaust all other remedies to her problem before the Supreme Court could be appealed to.

New cards
22

Biden v. Texas

  1. During the changing of administrations from Trump to Biden, the latter argued it did not have to follow Trump's MPP immigration policy; this led to an injunction, basically saying yes they do. I think...

New cards

Explore top notes

note Note
studied byStudied by 4 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 41 people
Updated ... ago
4.7 Stars(3)
note Note
studied byStudied by 80 people
Updated ... ago
4.7 Stars(6)
note Note
studied byStudied by 7 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 72 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 35 people
Updated ... ago
4.5 Stars(2)
note Note
studied byStudied by 7 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
note Note
studied byStudied by 119 people
Updated ... ago
4.5 Stars(2)

Explore top flashcards

flashcards Flashcard42 terms
studied byStudied by 14 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(2)
flashcards Flashcard51 terms
studied byStudied by 76 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(3)
flashcards Flashcard30 terms
studied byStudied by 1 person
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard60 terms
studied byStudied by 198 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(3)
flashcards Flashcard20 terms
studied byStudied by 13 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard48 terms
studied byStudied by 10 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard148 terms
studied byStudied by 11 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(1)
flashcards Flashcard212 terms
studied byStudied by 72 people
Updated ... ago
5.0 Stars(2)