FREE ESSAY ON MARBURY V MADISON ISSUE

MARBURY V MADISON ISSUE

Marbury v Madison
Issue: President Adams appointed several Federal Justices as midnight appointments,
President Madison did not want them and witheld their pay, one of the judges brought suit
for back pay
Decision Against Madison
Signifigence: Set up the policy of Judicial Review
Dartmouth College v Woodward
Issue: New Hampshire was attempting to regulate Dartmouth college who claimed they
couldn't because they had a royal charter
Decision: For Dartmouth
Signifigence: Declared the sanctity of contracts
Gibbons v Ogden
Issue: A man was granted monopoly right for water transport in New York and went against
another man granted monopoly rights by the US
Decision: In favor of Gibbons (granted by US)
Signifigence: Laws of congress are supreme (supercede states)
McCulloch v Maryland
Issue: Maryland attempted to tax the banks in its state (including the BUS)
Decision: Against Maryland
Significance: Congress had the right to a national bank due to the ellastic clause and
the states could not interfere with a federal bank
Munn v Illinois
Issue: Munn had run a grain wharehouse yet didn't apply for a license of public
wharehousing (had stated privately then started acquiring many peoples grain and became a
public wharehouse)
Decision: Against Munn
Significance: Government may regulate the manner in which citizens can use his or her
property once it is used for the public good 
Dred Scott v Sanford
Issue: A slave brought suit claiming his freedom because he had resided in a free state
for many years
Decision: The Court rulled against Scott
significance: The court not only rulled against Scott but claimed that slaves were
property and the government could not regulate slavery at all
Plessey v Ferguson
Issue: Plessy was of mixed descent and paid for first class passage on a RailRoad in
Louisiana, during the trip he took a while seat and was charged after refusing to leave
Decision: For Ferguson
Significance: Stated that seperate but equal facilities were allowed
Brown v Board of Education
Issue: The NAACP brought suit against Kansas claiming that seperate but equal facilities
could not exist
Decision: For Brown
Significance: Reputiated Plessy and stated no facilities could be seperate AND equal
Regents of University of California v Bakke
Issue: The University had a program which set aside seats (quotas) in a medical program
to which white students could not apply for, the students attempted to file suit for
these seats
Decision: Decided against the University
Significance: Stated that programs designed to allow seats for minorities (at the expence
of whites) was unconstitutional
Baker v Carr
Issue: Baker brought suit (representing Tennesse voters) saying they were denied rights
as legislation classified voters with respect of representation
Decision: For Baker
Significance: Gave federal courts the ability to consider cases challenging
misappropriation of state legislatures
Weeks v US...haven't found it yet sorry
Mapp v Ohio
Issue: Cleveland police forced open doors to Mapp's house (without a warrent) and
searched
Decision: For Mapp
Significance: All evidence obtained by illegal search and seizures are inadmissable in
court
Roe v Wade
Issue: Single mother (Roe) brought suit challenging Texas law not permitting abortion
Decision: For Roe
Significance: Stated that anti-abortion laws were illegal (allowed first trimester
abortions)
Korematsu v US
Issue: Korematsu was convicted for staying in a military area (during WWII) and was
arrested, he filed suit against his conviction
Decision: For the US
Significance: Stated that internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was a
constitutional act
New Jersey v T.L.O.
Issue: A girl had been caught smoking on school grounds and brought to the office, the
principal searched to find evidence of smoking after she denied it and found illegal drug
paraphanialia the girl filed suit to claim the search invalid
Decision: For New Jersey
Significance: Held that a principal could not illegilly search a student
Vernonia School v Acton....haven't found yet sorry
Webster v Reproductive Health
Issue: Health officials challenged the missouri statue which defended the rights of
unborn children
Decision: For Missouri (Webster?)
Significance: Stated that states could attempt to protect life as long as no
anti-abortion laws were present (in favor of life but not against abortion)
Gideon v Wainwright
Issue: Gideon was charged and had no funds, asked for an attorney and was denied,
defended himself, and was convicted. Appealed (because he had no attorney)
Decision: For Gideon
Significance: Set the precedence for the right for an accussed to have an attorney (and
provided for by the state if they can not afford one)
Escobedo v Illinois
Issue: Escopedo was arrested and questions by police yet not allowed to see a lawyer and
was not advised of his rights, and ended up making incriminating statements
Decision: For Escobedo
Significance: Right to an attorney at questioning and right to remain silent
Miranda v Arizona
Issue: Miranda was questioned by police and was not given his rights and made
incriminating statements
Decision: For Miranda
Significance: Said confessions could not be used unless a criminal had been advised of
his/her rights