(Redirected from Landmark case)A 'landmark decision' is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a 'landmark case') that establishes a
precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the
law or that simply establishes new
case law on a particular issue. Certain cases within this category are widely known in legal studies and may be reviewed by law students even if they have been overturned by later decisions.
The term "
landmark decision" is not a formal legal term but a
colloquialism, however it is in widespread use amongst legal professionals — over 5,000 published opinions of lower courts can be found identifying some precedent as a landmark decision in the field of law being addressed.
Comparison with ''cause célèbre''
A landmark decision differs from a ''
cause célèbre'' in that a case that draws public attention may not involve any substantial changes to the law or creation of new law, conversely a landmark decision may not impinge upon the consciousness of the general public.
The
Lindbergh kidnapping was a sensational crime of the 1930s. One may call it a ''cause célèbre''. The alleged kidnapper was captured, tried and executed several years after the crime. The correctness of that
death sentence is in dispute even until today. However, the legal basis of the decision itself does not involve with too much theoretical dispute. The
Congress of the United States later passed the "
Lindbergh Law" that made cross-state kidnapping a federal crime (otherwise, it will be a state crime). This, arguably, could have been a "landmark decision", if the Supreme Court rather than the Congress made the change (this is nearly impossible — the only way such a change could be made by a court is if an existing law could reasonably be interpreted to mean Congress intended it to have such an effect).
Criminal law was originally reserved for the states in the U.S. The Congress, with the help from the
Commerce Clause, later enacted numerous federal criminal statutes. If the Supreme Court one day finds the Commerce Clause not applicable to criminal laws, it will very likely to be called a landmark decision by legal professionals.
If, for whatever reason,
Bruno Hauptmann was found not to be the person who killed
Charles Lindbergh's son, his case would have been called ''cause célèbre'' in a way similar to the famous case of
Alfred Dreyfus (''see''
Dreyfus affair).
Landmark decisions in Australia
:''Main articles:
List of High Court of Australia cases and
List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases''
Landmark decisions in
Australia have usually been made by the
High Court of Australia, although historically some have been made by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
London.
★ In 1948 the High Court of Australia found that the
Chifley government's legislation to nationalise Australia's private banks was unconstitutional.
★ In 1951 the High Court of Australia found that
Robert Menzies' attempts to ban the
Communist Party of Australia were unconstitutional.
★ In 1992 ''
Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2)'' invalidated the declaration of
terra nullius.
Landmark decisions in Canada
:''Main articles:
List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and
List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council cases''
Landmark decisions in
Canada are have usually been made by the
Supreme Court of Canada, although historically some have been made by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
London.
Aboriginal rights
★ ''
R. v. Sparrow'', [1990] 1. S.C.R. 1075
★ ''
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia'' [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
★ ''
R. v. Marshall'' [1999] 3 SCR 45
Abortion
''
R. v. Morgentaler'' [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
===
Equality===
★ ''
Egan v. Canada'' [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513
★ ''
Law v. Canada'' [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497
===
Freedom of Speech ===
★ ''
Ford v. Quebec (A.G.)'' [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
★ ''
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General)'' [1989]
★ ''
R. v. Zundel'', [1992] 2 SCR 731
★ ''
R. v. Sharpe'' [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom
:''Main articles:
List of House of Lords cases''
Landmark decisions in the
United Kingdom have usually been made by the
Court of Appeal or the
House of Lords, and the
High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Many have involved contributions from
Lord Denning.
★ ''
Darcy v. Allein''
(1603) 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (
King’s Bench) (most widely know as ''The Case of Monopolies''): establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a
monopoly over a trade.
★ The ''
Case of Prohibitions'' (1607) (
Court of Common Pleas)
★ ''
Bushel's Case'' (1670) (
Court of Common Pleas): establishing the principle that a
judge cannot coerce a
jury to convict.
★ ''
Entick v. Carrington''
(1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1030: establishing the
civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of
executive power.
★ ''
Tulk v. Moxhay''
(1848) 41 ER 1143: establishing that in certain cases a
restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. bind a future owner) in
equity.
★ ''
Hadley v. Baxendale''
(1854) 9 Exch. 341 (
Court of Exchequer): establishing the extent to which a party in breach of contract is liable for the damages.
★ ''
Rylands v. Fletcher''
(1868) LR 3 HL 330: establishing a doctrine of
strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.
★ ''
Foakes v. Beer''
[1884] 9 A.C. 605: establishing the rule that prevents parties from discharging a contractual obligation by
part performance.
★ ''
The Moorcock''
14 P.D. 64 (1889): establishing the concept of
implied terms in contract law.
★ ''
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company''
[1893] 1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a
contract.
★ ''
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd.''
[1915] A.C. 847: confirming
privity of contract: only a party to a contract can be sued on it.
★ ''
Donoghue v. Stevenson''
[1932] S.C.(H.L.) 31: establishing the "neighbour principle" as the foundation of the modern
delict of
negligence.
★ ''
Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd''
[1947] K.B. 130: establishing the doctrine of
promissory estoppel.
★ ''
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation''
[1948] 1 KB 223: estalishing the concept of
Wednesbury unreasonableness for
judicial review.
★ ''
Hedley Byrne v. Heller''
[1963] 2 All E.R. 575: establishing liability for pure economic loss, absent any contract, arising from a negligent statement.
★ ''
Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner''
[1969] 1 QB 439: a leading case illustrating the requirement for
concurrence of ''
actus reus'' (
Latin for "guilty act") and ''
mens rea'' (Latin for "guilty mind") in order to establish a criminal offence.
★ ''
Ramsay v. IRC''
[1982] A. C. 300: establishing a doctrine that ignores for tax purposes the purported effect of a pre-ordained series of transactions into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from the avoidance of a liability to tax.
★ ''
Furniss v. Dawson''
[1984] A.C. 474: establishing that tax can be levied on the results of a composite transaction, even if steps that are only there for the purpose of avoiding tax do not cancel each other out.
★ ''
Factortame case'' (1990): the
European Court of Justice ruled that the
House of Lords was required to suspend an Act of Parliament that infringed
EC law.
Landmark decisions in the United States
Main articles: Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the
United States Supreme Court.
United States Courts of Appeal may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
Landmark decisions in U.S. Civil Rights
Discrimination based on race
★ ''
Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott case)'', '', Blacks, whether free or slaves, cannot be U.S. citizens. Consequently, they cannot sue in federal courts. Also, the federal government cannot forbid slavery in the western territories before they access statehood. The decision is voided by the subsequent
Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
★ ''
Plessy v. Ferguson'', '', segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of
separate but equal, which held for close to 60 years.
★ ''
Korematsu v. United States'', '', American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights; first application of the
strict scrutiny test.
★ ''
Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka'', '', '', '', '''', segregated schools in the several states are unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment, overturning ''Plessy''.
★ ''
Bolling v. Sharpe, '''', the companion case to ''
Brown'', which held that segregated schools in the
District of Columbia violated the
5th Amendment.
★ ''
Loving v. Virginia'', '', laws that prohibit marriage between races (
anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional.
★ ''
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.'', '', The federal government may prohibit discrimination in housing by private parties under the
Civil Rights Act of 1968.
★ ''
Gates v. Collier'', '501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1972)', case that brought an end to the trustee system and flagrant inmate abuse at
Mississippi State Penitentiary at
Parchman, Mississippi. It was the first case of a body of law developed in the
Fifth Circuit holding that a variety of forms of
corporal punishment against prisoners was considered
cruel and unusual punishment and abolished
racial segregation in prison.
★ ''
Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke'', '' Race based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution. The decision leaves the door open to some race usage in admission decisions. See ''
Grutter v. Bollinger''.
★ ''
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena'', '' Race based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
★ ''
Grutter v. Bollinger'', '' a narrowly tailored use of race in student admission decisions may be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as a diverse student body is beneficial for all students (as hinted in ''Regents v. Bakke'').
Discrimination based on sex
★ ''
Frontiero v. Richardson'', '' Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute giving benefits to the spouses of male, but not female members of the uniformed services (on the assumption that only the former were dependent) is unconstitutional.
★ ''
Craig v. Boren'', '' Setting different minimum ages according to sex (female 18, male 21) to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination, contrary to the equal protection clause.
★ ''
United States v. Virginia'', '', found that sex-based "
separate but equal" military training facilities violate the
Fourteenth Amendment's
Equal Protection Clause.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation
★ ''
Bowers v. Hardwick'', '' a state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; ironically this statute that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court in the case of ''
Powell v. Georgia'' (actually Powell v. State). In 2003, the Supreme Court revisited the ''Bowers'' decision and formally overturned it in ''
Lawrence v. Texas''.
★ ''
Romer v. Evans'', '' A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause).
★ ''
Lawrence v. Texas'', ''
Texas law that prohibits
gays from engaging in
consensual sodomy in private is an unreasonable invasion of privacy, prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment ''due process'' clause.
Birth control and abortion
★ ''
Griswold v. Connecticut'', '' married people are entitled to use contraception and making it a crime to sell them to same is unconstitutional. (A later case, ''
Eisenstadt v. Baird'', extended this to unmarried adults.)
★ ''
Roe v. Wade'', '' Most restrictions on first-trimester
abortions are
unconstitutional.
★ ''
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey'', '' Placed tighter restrictions on abortion by upholding parts of Pennsylvania's abortion laws. Also reaffirmed the decisions of
Roe v. Wade.
Right to die
★ ''
Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health'', '' Family having requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments of their
vegetative relative, the state may constitutionally oppose this request, for lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said relative. (The state later withdrew its objection.)
★ ''
Washington v. Glucksberg'', '' Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide is constitutional.
★ ''
Vacco v. Quill'', '' New York's prohibition on assisting suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
★ ''
Gonzales v. Oregon'', '126 S.Ct. 904 (2006)' United States Attorney General could not enforce the
Controlled Substances Act against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an
Oregon law.
Power of Congress to enforce civil rights
★ ''
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States'', '', the Federal
Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be applied to a place of public accommodation, prohibiting discrimination against
blacks.
★ ''
Katzenbach v. McClung'', '', '' the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section 8) extends to a restaurant not patronized by interstate travellers, as it serves food that has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses.
★ ''
City of Boerne v. Flores'', ''. In the context of Constitutional rights, Congress cannot invoke substantive change in Constitutional protections (here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), but can only enact legislation that remedies or prevents actual violations of existing rights.
Landmark decisions in U.S. criminal law
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
★ ''
Mapp v. Ohio '''' Evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the
United States Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court.
★ ''
Katz v. United States'', '' Evidence obtained by wiretapping a public phonebooth without a warrant is not admissible in court, just as if a private phone line had been eavesdropped.
★ ''
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton'', '' Schools may require random drug testing.
Right to an attorney
★ ''
Gideon v. Wainwright '''', anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
★ ''
Escobedo v. Illinois '''', a person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney.
★ ''
Miranda v. Arizona'' (and ''Westover v. United States'', ''Vignera v. New York'', and ''California v. Stewart'') '', police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer and to have one appointed if he is an indigent. The interrogation must stop if the suspect states he wishes to remain silent.
Capital punishment
★ ''
Furman v. Georgia'', '', the method then in effect for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional.
★ ''
Jurek v. Texas'' '', a "three-pronged" test for determining if the death penalty should be imposed is constitutional.
★ ''
Woodson v. North Carolina'', '' North Carolina's mandatory death sentence statute violates the
Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments.
★ ''
Gregg v. Georgia'', '' Carefully drafted death penalty statutes may be constitutional. This ruling made executions possible again after ''Furman v. Georgia'' (see above) had stopped them.
★ ''
Proffitt v. Florida'', '' Requirement of comparison of mitigating to aggravating factors to be used to impose death sentence is constitutional.
★ ''
Roberts v. Louisiana'', ', ' Mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional.
★ ''
Roper v. Simmons'', '' A sentence of death may not be imposed on juveniles.
Landmark decisions in U.S. Federalism
★ ''
Marbury v. Madison'' '', a case that established the Supreme Court's power to strike down acts of
United States Congress that were in conflict with the Constitution (see
judicial review).
★ ''
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee'', '' federal courts may review State court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the various states.
★ ''
McCulloch v. Maryland'', ''. The court stated the doctrine of implied powers, from the ''necessary and proper'' clause at Article I, section 8. To fulfill its goal, the federal government may use any means the constitution does not forbid (as opposed to only what the constitution explicitly allow or only what can be ''proved'' to be necessary). State government may in no way hinder the legitimate action of the federal government (here, Maryland cannot levy a tax on the Bank of the United States). The court has varied in time on the extents of the implied powers with a markedly narrower reading approximately from the 1840s to the 1930s.
★ ''
Missouri v. Holland'', '',
treaties made by the
federal government are supreme over any
state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any
states' rights arising under the
Tenth Amendment.
★ ''
United States v. Nixon'', '' The President of the United States is not above the law.
★ ''
South Dakota v. Dole'', '' Withholding of Federal highway funds to force state to raise drinking age to 21 is permissible.
★ ''
U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton'', '' State law cannot set term limits on members of Congress.
★ ''
United States v. Lopez'', '' The
Commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate guns in state-operated schools.
★ ''
Clinton v. Jones'', '' The
President of the United States has no particular immunity, which could require civil law litigation against the President for a dispute unrelated to the office of President (e.g. having occurred before (s) he took office), to be stayed until the end of the President's term. Such delay would deprive plaintiffs, (and arguably the defendant), of the
Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
★ ''
Printz v. United States'', '' Brady Act requiring state official to execute a federal law (in doing background checks for gun ownership) is unconstitutional.
===Landmark decisions in
First Amendment Rights
Freedom of Speech and of the Press
★ ''
Schenck v. United States'', '' Established the idea that "
clear and present danger" in certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Schenck's attempts to obstruct recruitment processes were perceived as a "clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".
★ ''
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire'', '' Established the “
fighting words doctrine” that some words are not protected under the
First Amendment because they are tantamount to violent actions.
★ ''
Roth v. United States'' (and Alberts v. California), '' Obscene material is not protected by the
First Amendment.
★ ''
New York Times v. Sullivan'' (and ''
Abernathy v. Sullivan''), '' Public officials, to prove they were libelled, must show not only that a statement is false,but also that it has been published with malicious intent.
★ ''
Brandenburg v. Ohio'', '' Mere advocacy of the use of force, or of violation of law (in this case, by a Ku Klux Klan leader) is protected by the 1st Amendment free speech clause. Only inciting others to take direct and immediate unlawful action would be without constitutional protection.
★ ''
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District'', '' Wearing armbands is a legitimate form of protest under the
First Amendment, even on public school grounds.
★ ''
Cohen v. California'', '' One should not be convicted for wearing a jacket in a courtroom emblazoned with the phrase "Fuck the Draft" (in the
Vietnam War context), as this is communication, protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. The word "
fuck" itself, clearly not directed at the hearer, is not in this particular instance a
fighting word, and so not without constitutional protection.
★ ''
New York Times v. United States'', '' Government's desire to keep so-called "Pentagon Papers" classified is insufficient to overcome 1st Amendment hurdle.
★ ''
Miller v. California'', '' To be obscene, a work must fail several tests to determine its value to society, essentially having "no redeeming social value" to be so declared.
★ ''
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell'', '' A public figure shown in a parody must show actual malice to claim he is libelled.
★ ''
Texas v. Johnson'', '' Law prohibiting burning of the American flag is unconstitutional as violating the
First Amendment.
★ ''
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.'', '' Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
★ ''
Reno v. ACLU'', '' The Communications Decency Act, regulating certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad as to be an unconstitutional restraint on the 1st Amendment.
★ ''
Erie v. Pap's A. M.'', '' Upholding the 1991 ruling that Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Freedom of Religion
★ ''
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp'' (and Murray v. Curlett), ''
First Amendment non establishment clause forbids state mandated reading of the
Bible, or recitation of the
Lord's Prayer in
public schools.
★ ''
Lemon v. Kurtzman'', '' For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
★ ''
Wisconsin v. Yoder'', '' Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons.
★ ''
Lee v. Weisman'', '' Public schools inviting clergy to read prayer at an official ceremony (here a graduation ceremony) violates First Amendment non-establishment clause.
★ ''
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah'', '' Government must show a compelling interest to draw a statute targeting a religion's ritual (as opposed to a statute that happens to burden the ritual, but is not directed at it). Failing to show such an interest, the prohibition of animal sacrifice is a violation of First Amendment free exercise clause.
★ ''
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia'', '' University can't fund secular groups from student dues, then exclude religious ones that also qualify under the same funding scheme.
★ ''
Agostini v. Felton'', '' A government program sending government employees to
parochial schools (and also, to other private schools) specifically to provide remedial
education to disadvantaged children (and not to all children) does not violate the First Amendment non establishment clause.
Right to Assemble and Petition the Government
★ ''
Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston'', '' private parade organizers have a right to exclude groups from participating with whose message they disagree.
★ ''
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale'', '' Private organizations' First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.
Landmark Decisions in Other Areas of U.S. Law
★ ''
Fletcher v. Peck'', '', first time the Court struck down a State law as unconstitutional. A State legislature (in this case,
Georgia) can repeal a previous, corruptly made law (in this case, a land grant), but not void valid contracts made under this law.
★ ''
The Paquete Habana'', '', federal courts could look to
customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law.
★ ''
Lochner v. New York'', '', asserted that the "right to free contract" or "liberty of contract" is implicit in the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
★ ''
Goldberg v. Kelly'', '', federal entitlement programs such as
welfare conferred
property rights on recipients, and their termination required procedural
due process.
★ ''
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez'', '' use of property tax as means to finance public education is constitutional.
★ ''
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.'', '',
government agencies' interpretation of its own mandate from
Congress is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
★ ''
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.'', '', making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of
time-shifting does not constitute
copyright infringement, but is
fair use.
★ ''
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service'', '', originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of
copyright protection.
★ ''
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals'', '' expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community (
Daubert standard).
★ ''
Breard v Greene'', '', rejected jurisdiction of
International Court of Justice in a
capital punishment case dealing with a citizen of
Paraguay.
See also
★
Case citation
★
Lists of case law
External links
★
Supreme Court Landmark Decisions — Cornell Law School
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
