SCotUS rules of thumb.
November 7, 2011 10:33 AM Subscribe
I'm looking for Supreme Court created tests or rules.
More like the Miller Test for obscenity, or the Lemon Test for Establishment Clause violations. There have to be a bunch more, but I can't seem to think of any more.
More like the Miller Test for obscenity, or the Lemon Test for Establishment Clause violations. There have to be a bunch more, but I can't seem to think of any more.
Best answer: The Brandenburg test for censoring inflammatory speech is another.
posted by jedicus at 10:48 AM on November 7, 2011
posted by jedicus at 10:48 AM on November 7, 2011
Best answer: There are so many of these that it might be helpful to know why you're looking. Sticking only to three-part tests, for example:
posted by willbaude at 10:51 AM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
The Mathews v. Eldridge test for due process violations.More generally, as I hope these examples show, it's very common for the Court's reasons in a particular case to be converted by subsequent cases into a "test." I'm not sure when that sort of conversion is important or what it's relevant to, and many lawyers and judges are critical of too-easily characterizing things as "tests" rather than looking at the fundamental reasoning about what's going on, but those examples should get you started.
Sprint v. APCC ("We have elaborated the standing requirements of Article III in terms of a three-part test.").
Steel Co. v. CBE ("[T]he past 25 years [is] an era rich in three-part tests.").
UFCW v. Brown (Three part test for union standing).
Suter v. Artist M ("In determining the scope of the first exception--whether a federal statute creates an 'enforceable right'--the Court has developed and repeatedly applied a three-part test.")
Ward v. Rock against Racism ("Three-part test for judging the constitutionality of government regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech.")
Voinovich v. Quilter (Three-part test for vote dilution under Voting Rights Act).
Florida Bar v. Went for It (Three-part test for regulating commercial speech).
Michigan v. Payne (Three-part test for retroactivity).
Richardson v. United States (Three-part test for appealability as a collateral order).
posted by willbaude at 10:51 AM on November 7, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: The Strickland test for ineffective assistance of counsel.
posted by unreasonable at 10:53 AM on November 7, 2011
posted by unreasonable at 10:53 AM on November 7, 2011
Best answer: The four-factor Graham analysis for obviousness in patent law.
posted by jedicus at 10:54 AM on November 7, 2011
posted by jedicus at 10:54 AM on November 7, 2011
Best answer: Does a Batson challenge count? How about Strickland test (oh, I see that's been mentioned) or the "voluntariness test" for confessions which is not named for a case, having been developed over a line of cases.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:03 AM on November 7, 2011
posted by crush-onastick at 11:03 AM on November 7, 2011
Best answer: If you're looking for a more extensive list than the comments in this thread (which are bound to be haphazard since we don't know the context for your interest in these tests), buy Gilbert or Emmanuel on Constitutional Law. They're full of clear statements of tests created by SCOTUS.
posted by John Cohen at 11:03 AM on November 7, 2011
posted by John Cohen at 11:03 AM on November 7, 2011
The Lemon Test for determining whether educational practices or policies violate separation of church and state.
posted by mareli at 12:06 PM on November 7, 2011
posted by mareli at 12:06 PM on November 7, 2011
Response by poster: Awesome, thanks! I was just looking to read over a bunch so I could make a fictional test myself. I wanted more tests and opinions based on them so I could write one up. These will help a great deal, thank you.
posted by Garm at 12:54 PM on November 7, 2011
posted by Garm at 12:54 PM on November 7, 2011
Chevron USA, Inc. v. NRDC is the administrative law case.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also called "The Steel Seizure Case," is known for Justice Jackson's concurrence, which is still a highly influential discussion of Executive v. Congressional authority under the Constitution.
It's not Supreme Court precedent, but the M'Naghten Rules were developed by the House of Lords in 1843 and were pretty much immediately adopted by most common law jurisdictions as the standard for criminal insanity.
posted by valkyryn at 6:02 AM on November 8, 2011
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, also called "The Steel Seizure Case," is known for Justice Jackson's concurrence, which is still a highly influential discussion of Executive v. Congressional authority under the Constitution.
It's not Supreme Court precedent, but the M'Naghten Rules were developed by the House of Lords in 1843 and were pretty much immediately adopted by most common law jurisdictions as the standard for criminal insanity.
posted by valkyryn at 6:02 AM on November 8, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by jedicus at 10:43 AM on November 7, 2011