https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl Miranda v. Arizona en-us 2023-01-30 15:04:21 UTC 2025-11-08 08:17:19 UTC hello@padlet.com sext70 https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2461566932 Key players:
    Petitioner- Miranda
    Respondent- Arizona
    Location- Phoenix, Arizona
    Decided by- Warren Court
Key Facts:
    Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. The police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. 
Verdict: 
     The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody.
Key Issue:
    Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
Website:
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759   ]]> 2023-01-30 15:15:12 UTC https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2461566932 sext70 https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462314693 Key Players:
Appellant: Oliver Brown, Mrs. Richard Lawton, Mrs. Sadie Emmanuel, et al.
Appellae: Board of Education of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas, et al.
Location: Monroe School
Decided by: Warren Court
Key Facts: 
     African American students had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They were denied relief because of Plessy v. Fergusson.
Verdict: 
     Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
Key issue: 
     Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Website: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483]]> 2023-01-31 01:54:44 UTC https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462314693 sext70 https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462324956 Key players: 
Petitioner- Homer Adolph Plessy
Resondent-John Ferguson
Location-Old Louisiana State Capitol
Decided by- Fuller Court
Key Facts: 
    At trial, Plessy’s lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted.
Verdict:
   The Court held that the state law was constitutional. Segregation did not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
Key issue:
    Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment? 
Website: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537]]> 2023-01-31 02:06:09 UTC https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462324956 sext70 https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462331218 Key Players:
Petitioner- Dred Scott
Respondent- John F. A. Sanford
Decided by- Taney Court
Key Facts: 
    Dred Scott was a slave and after he returned to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man he lost the case so he appealed.
Verdict: 
   Held portions of the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment, treating Scott as property, not as a person.
Key issue:
    Was Dred Scott free or a slave?
Website: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393]]> 2023-01-31 02:13:43 UTC https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462331218 sext70 https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462335373 Key Players:
Petitioner: McCulloch
Respondent: Maryland
Location; Baltimore, Maryland
Decided by: Marshall Court
Key Facts:
  In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.The state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank. 
Verdict: 
    Maryland may not impose a tax on the bank. the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.
Key Issue:Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank?
Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?
Website: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316]]> 2023-01-31 02:18:40 UTC https://padlet.com/sext70/4cpys6itkl7p9ktl/wish/2462335373