This seems like an attitude favoring a sort of totalitarian bureaucracy which, under a President of the same stamp, would try to coerce an uncooperative Congress or Supreme Court.

For lawyers, reflecting perhaps their parochial preferences, there has been a special fascination since then in the role played by the Supreme Court in that transformation -- the manner in which its decisions altered in `` the switch in time that saved nine '', President Roosevelt's ill-starred but in effect victorious `` Court-packing plan '', the imprimatur of judicial approval that was finally placed upon social legislation.

his requesting, and often getting, higher wages, better working conditions, better schools -- changes that were slowly emerging even before the Supreme Court decision of 1954.

the Honorable Robert Wagner, Sr., at that time a justice of the New York Supreme Court, was on the reception committee.

The editorial concerned legislative proposals to ease the tax burden on DuPont stockholders, in connection with the United States Supreme Court ruling that DuPont must divest itself of its extensive General Motors stock holdings.

-- Indonesia Military Supreme Court has confirmed the death sentence passed on Alan Lawrence Pope, an American pilot.

I fought like a tigress but by the time I appealed my case to the Supreme Court ( 1937 ), Mr. Roosevelt and his `` henchmen '' had done their `` dirty work '' all too well, even going so far as to attempt to `` pack '' the highest tribunal in the land in order to defeat little me.

But the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear my case!!

For almost a hundred years we relied upon state courts ( subject to review by the Supreme Court ) for the protection of most rights arising under national law.

In 1910 it required the convening of a special three-judge court for the issuance of certain injunctions and allowed direct appeals to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, like Congress, showed misgivings concerning this aspect of government by injunction.

On review the Supreme Court, via Mr. Justice Frankfurter, found southern racial problems `` a sensitive area of social policy on which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to adjudication is open ''.

To insure uniformity in the meaning of national law, however, state interpretations are subject to Supreme Court review.

Only when a decision is rendered by the District Court of Appeal ( or, of course, the Supreme Court ) is a binding precedent established.

It is an issue which may well reach the Supreme Court of the United States before judicial finality is achieved.

As a school district, the District of Columbia has had desegregated schools since 1954, shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

On the one hand do we argue the Supreme Court decision required only that a child not be denied admission to a school on account of his race??

Probably a lawyer once said it best for all time in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The struggle was resolved in 1819 in the Supreme Court in one of the most intriguing cases in our judicial history.

`` It is a duty '', said Hough, `` not to let pass this opportunity of protesting against the methods of taking and printing testimony in Equity, current in this circuit ( and probably others ), excused if not justified by the rules of the Supreme Court, especially to be found in patent causes, and flagrantly exemplified in this litigation.

In 1912 the United States Supreme Court adopted a new set of rules of equity which became effective on February 1, 1913.

There is little doubt that they were promulgated by the Supreme Court as a direct result of the Selden patent suit.

Under Formby's plan, an appointee would be selected by a board composed of the governor, lieutenant governor, speaker of the House, attorney general and chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

The fight over the Warwick School Committee's appointment of a coordinator of audio-visual education may go to the state Supreme Court, it appeared last night.

On April 6, 2006, in a case arising from a game involving community college baseball teams, the Supreme Court of California ruled that baseball players in California assume the risk of being hit by baseballs even if the balls were intentionally thrown so as to cause injury.

( Most notably, in the case Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 ( 1975 ), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence in the face of a California Civil Code provision codifying the traditional common-law doctrine of contributory negligence.

It took legal actions to force them to do so: in 1864 the Supreme Court of the State of California ordered them under Writs of Mandamus ( The People of the State of California ex rel the Central Pacific Railroad Company vs. Henry P. Coon, Mayor ; Henry M. Hale, Auditor ; and Joseph S. Paxson, Treasurer, of the City and County of San Francisco.

In October 1985, the California Supreme Court rejected Rosenthal's appeal of the multimillion-dollar judgment against him for legal malpractice, and upheld conclusions of a trial court and a Court of Appeal that Rosenthal acted improperly.

The Supreme Court of California, in affirming the disbarment, held that Rosenthal engaged in transactions involving undisclosed conflicts of interest, took positions adverse to his former clients, overstated expenses, double-billed for legal fees, failed to return client files, failed to provide access to records, failed to give adequate legal advice, failed to provide clients with an opportunity to obtain independent counsel, filed fraudulent claims, gave false testimony, engaged in conduct designed to harass his clients, delayed court proceedings, obstructed justice and abused legal process.

* 1972 – The California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628 invalidates the state's death penalty and commutes the sentences of all death row inmates to life imprisonment.

* 1973 – In handing down the decision in Miller v. California 413 US 15, the Supreme Court of the United States establishes the Miller Test for obscenity in U. S. law.

When interviewed about it, he stated, “ I certainly believe that people who are in pain should be helped and assisted in every way possible, that the drugs should be used to mitigate their pain but I believe the law of the United States of America which requires that drugs not be used except for legitimate health purposes .” " Attorney General Ashcroft Asks Supreme Court To Ban Assisted Suicide – California Healthline.

* 2008 – California becomes the second U. S. state after Massachusetts in 2004 to legalize same-sex marriage after the state's own Supreme Court rules a previous ban unconstitutional.

The year after Greenman, the Supreme Court of California proceeded to extend strict liability to all parties involved in the manufacturing, distribution, and sale of defective products ( including retailers ) and in 1969 made it clear that such defendants were liable not only to direct customers and users, but also to any innocent bystanders randomly injured by defective products.

Although the Greenman rule was transmitted to most other states via Section 402A of the Restatement of Torts, Second ( published in 1964 after Greenman ), the Supreme Court of California refused to adopt Section 402A's " unreasonably dangerous " limitation upon strict liability in 1972.

Although the Supreme Court of California has since become more conservative, it continues to endorse and expand the doctrine.

In February 2005, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. California that the California Department of Corrections ' unwritten practice of racially segregating prisoners in its prison reception centers – which California claimed was for inmate safety ( gangs in California, as throughout the U. S., usually organize on racial lines )— is to be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest level of constitutional review.

In deciding Chimel v. California,, the Supreme Court elucidated its previous decisions.

On January 3, 2011, in The People v. Gregory Diaz, the Supreme Court of California ruled for allowing warrantless search by the police of suspects ' cell phones at the time of the arrest, on the grounds of preventing destruction of evidence such as text messages:

Nevertheless, in California v. Green,, the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause.

In Faretta v. California,, the Supreme Court recognized a defendant's right to pro se representation.

In Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California,, the Supreme Court ruled the right to pro se representation did not apply to appellate courts.

* July 9 – Earl Warren, Governor of California and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court ( b. 1891 )