the plaintiff in a famous contracts case Hamer v Sidway
The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on March 21, 1989, and decided on June 21, 1989.Case Citation:Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
9 votes for Pointer, 0 against
Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John F. A. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)The short title is Scott v. Sandford, but the case is often referred to colloquially as "the Dred Scott case." Sandford is misspelled in the Supreme Court documents; the proper spelling is Sanford, without a d. This cannot be corrected, however.
Texas v. Johnson was important enough for the US Supreme Court to hear because it involved a crucial decision about whether burning (and other flag desecration) was protected as a form of free speech under the first First Amendment. Many cities had laws prohibiting the activity, a fairly common means of political protest. Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over laws affecting the entire country, so they needed to make the decision, because a First Amendment interpretation affects the entire country and is a matter of national importance.Background InformationIn 1984, Gregory Johnson participated in a political rally protesting U.S. war policies. The protest culminated in Johnson and others dousing an American flag with kerosene and setting it on fire in the streets of Dallas.Johnson was arrested under the Texas Venerated Objects Law, which outlawed intentionally or knowingly desecrating a flag in a way some observer might find seriously offensive. He was found guilty and sentenced to a year in prison plus a $2,000 fine.Johnson appealed his case to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the equivalent of a Texas Supreme Court for criminal cases (Texas has two high courts: one for criminal cases and one for civil cases), which reversed the lower court's decision on the grounds that burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment as expressive political speech.The State of Texas, hoping to preserve the flag desecration statute, appealed the state's ruling to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court held that the Texas law stating desecration is illegal if "the actor knows it will seriously offend one or more persons," was a deliberate attempt at suppressing free speech, and therefore was unconstitutional. Johnson had the right to invoke First Amendment protection because the burning occurred in the context of a political protest.Case Citation:Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)For more information about Texas v. Johnson, see Related Questions, below.
An individual wearing a black armband to protest against a war Burning the flag as a form of protest or demonstration Creating artwork or performance pieces to convey a political message
Hollingsworth.
In the case of James v/s Phil, it is James who is the plaintiff as it is he, who brought the case against Phil in the court of law.
17
Texas v. Johnson, (1989) has been cited a number of cases, but you are probably referring specifically to:US v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
the plaintiff in a famous contracts case Hamer v Sidway
The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on March 21, 1989, and decided on June 21, 1989.Case Citation:Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989) the US Supreme Court overturned the Texas Venerated Objects Law (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.09(a)(3) [Vernon 1974]), which outlawed intentionally or knowingly desecrating a flag in a way that some observer might find seriously offensive.Case Citation:Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989)For more information about Texas v. Johnson, (1989) and other flag desecration cases, see Related Links, below.
flag burning was unconstitutional
Ronald Reagan
The plaintiff (or complainant) was the Cherokee Nation; the defendant (actually the respondent) was the State of Georgia.Case Citation:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)
Lawrence v. Texas