Court Cases
Barron V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
1833
7 vote(s) for Mayor and City Council, 0 vote(s) against
*Background of case:
*the case began with a lawsuit from John Barron against Baltimore stating that it deprived him of his property which violates the Fifth Amendment. It proves that the government cannot take private property with just compensation. The court found that Baltimore deprived him of his private property and gave him $4,500. It was later reversed but then appealed to the Supreme Court in 1833. *judges in the majority opinion: *they did not hear the arguments of the city of Baltimore.
*Reason for majority ruling:
*the limitations on government in the Fifth Amendment were intended to limit the powers of the national government. *Judges in the dissenting opinion: *There were none dissenting
*Reasons for dissenting opinion:
*There were none dissenting
*Judges concurring:
*the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. *What side did concurring judges agree with and which points do they disagree? *They agreed on how Baltimore deprived Barron of private property but they disagreed with Baltimore by not allowing them to state their case.
Lemon V. Kurtzman
1971
8 vote(s) for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
*Background of case:
*it involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Both laws supporting educational related purposes. *judges in the majority opinion: *Three part laws dealing with religious establishments. An excessive government entanglement with religion. *Reason for majority opinion: *concerning legislation about unhealthy support to religious schools. *Judges in the dissenting opinion: *there were none dissenting
*Reasons for dissenting opinion:
*there were none dissenting
*Judges concurring:
*no judges concurred
*What side did concurring judges agree with and which points do they disagree? *no judges concurred
Zelman V. Simmons-Harris
1833
7 vote(s) for Mayor and City Council, 0 vote(s) against
*Background of case:
*the case began with a lawsuit from John Barron against Baltimore stating that it deprived him of his property which violates the Fifth Amendment. It proves that the government cannot take private property with just compensation. The court found that Baltimore deprived him of his private property and gave him $4,500. It was later reversed but then appealed to the Supreme Court in 1833. *judges in the majority opinion: *they did not hear the arguments of the city of Baltimore.
*Reason for majority ruling:
*the limitations on government in the Fifth Amendment were intended to limit the powers of the national government. *Judges in the dissenting opinion: *There were none dissenting
*Reasons for dissenting opinion:
*There were none dissenting
*Judges concurring:
*the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states. *What side did concurring judges agree with and which points do they disagree? *They agreed on how Baltimore deprived Barron of private property but they disagreed with Baltimore by not allowing them to state their case.
Lemon V. Kurtzman
1971
8 vote(s) for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
*Background of case:
*it involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Both laws supporting educational related purposes. *judges in the majority opinion: *Three part laws dealing with religious establishments. An excessive government entanglement with religion. *Reason for majority opinion: *concerning legislation about unhealthy support to religious schools. *Judges in the dissenting opinion: *there were none dissenting
*Reasons for dissenting opinion:
*there were none dissenting
*Judges concurring:
*no judges concurred
*What side did concurring judges agree with and which points do they disagree? *no judges concurred
Zelman V. Simmons-Harris