top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: February 20

Feb 20
1 min read

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (decided February 20, 1905): state statute can allow local boards of health to require vaccinations (plaintiff contested Cambridge’s 1902 attempt to stem smallpox epidemic)


Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 146 (decided February 20, 2019): Excessive Fines Clause of Eighth Amendment is enforceable against states under Fourteenth Amendment; remands on issue of whether civil forfeiture statute violates Clause (here, vehicle seized worth four times the heroin defendant transported in it) (Indiana Supreme Court later held the statute unconstitutional, 169 N.E.3d 361)


Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (decided February 20, 2013): federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of patent cases but not legal malpractice claim alleging mishandling of patent case


United States v. Euge, 444 U.S. 707 (decided February 20, 1980): IRS doesn’t need a court order to make you go to their office to write a handwriting sample


Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (decided February 20, 1974): housing discrimination action brought under Civil Rights Law of 1968 carries right to a jury trial, even though it didn’t exist in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted and even though it allows injunctive relief (an “equitable” remedy; the 7A applies on its face only to actions “at law”)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: October 14

McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2 (decided October 14, 1968): Court holds that its rule of Mempa v. Rhay, 1967 -- the right to counsel in revocation of probation and deferred sentencing proceedings, at le

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: October 13

Moore v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis, 358 U.S. 31 (decided October 13, 1958): Court, without opinion, reverses Missouri Supreme Court and upholds jury verdict that railroad company had share

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: October 12

United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1976): After conviction based on marijuana found in car, the Circuit Court (in another case) created an exclusionary rule which was retrospe

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page