Gibson v. United States

Last updated
Gibson v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued January 2–3, 1946
Reargued October 23, 1946
Decided December 23, 1946
Full case nameGibson v. United States
Citations329 U.S. 338 ( more )
67 S. Ct. 301; 91 L. Ed. 331; 1946 U.S. LEXIS 1584
Case history
Prior
Court membership
Chief Justice
Fred M. Vinson
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · Stanley F. Reed
Felix Frankfurter  · William O. Douglas
Frank Murphy  · Robert H. Jackson
Wiley B. Rutledge  · Harold H. Burton
Case opinions
MajorityRutledge, joined by unanimous
ConcurrenceMurphy

Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Jehovah's Witness minister could appeal his classification without first appearing at induction camp. [1]

Related Research Articles

Preamble to the United States Constitution brief introductory statement of the Constitutions fundamental purposes and guiding principles

The Preamble to the United States Constitution, beginning with the words We the People, is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. Courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained from it is tainted as well.

Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether imposing capital punishment a second time, after it failed in an attempt to execute Willie Francis in 1946, constituted a violation of the United States Constitution. The issues raised surrounded the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment, and the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th Amendment, as made applicable to the State of Louisiana via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6-3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). This landmark case made the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 1943 term.

United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States federal government was empowered by Condemnation Act of August 1, 1888; the Public Buildings Act of 1926; and the United States Constitution to exercise its right of eminent domain over land containing buildings owned by a state or local government.

Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920), was a U.S. Supreme Court Case in which Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes. Federal agents illegally seized tax books from Silverthorne and created copies of the records. The issue in this case is whether or not derivatives of illegal evidence are permissible in court. The ruling, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., was that to permit derivatives would encourage police to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, so the illegal copied evidence was held tainted and inadmissible. This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension of the exclusionary rule.

Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case employing the "reasonableness test" in warrantless searches. The Court held that while the police need not always be factually correct in conducting a warrantless search, such a search must always be reasonable.

<i>Cleveland v. United States</i> (1946) United States Supreme Court case

Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14 (1946), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that notwithstanding the fact that polygamy is a person's religious belief, the Mann Act prohibits the transportation of women across state lines to participate in polygamy.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling 8-0 that although states have broad power to regulate economic activities, they cannot prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP is a global law firm, founded in Los Angeles in 1890. The firm includes approximately 1,200 attorneys and 1,000 staff located in 20 offices around the world, including North and South America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Cleveland v. Zangrillo is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.

References

  1. Gibson v. United States, 329 U.S. 338 (1946).