I’m planning another “Variation on a Standard” quilt pattern idea, and I’d like to do a pattern called “Courthouse Steps” (a log cabin variant) with screen printed fabric that has citations from influential law cases printed on it, to commemorate my new job at the Attorney General’s office.
Now, initially, I asked
Feel free to throw in your two cents worth about which legal cases you think have changed the course of history (no imaginary cases a la Kramer v. Kramer, please!). International law is perfectly fine, and Canadian law is especially welcome since it’s mostly American so far.
Here’s what we have so far
R. v. Dudley and Stephens (in which Dudley, Stephens and two others were stranded in a lifeboat following a shipwreck. Dudley and Stephens decided to kill and eat the cabin-boy, and then were miraculously rescued, only to be arrested and sentenced to death for their crime. Bizarrely, the public seemed to love them, so Queen Victoria commuted their sentences and spared them the noose.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954, U.S. Supreme Court): in which the U.S. Supreme Court dragged the southern U.S. into the twentieth century, kicking and screaming, by declaring that “separate but equal” wasn’t equal enough and requiring the racial integration of public schools.
R. v. Oakes (1986, Supreme Court of Canada): in which the Canadian Supreme Court set out the test for justifying a reasonable limit on a constitutional right. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out a laundry list of rights, but allows the government to infringe those rights when doing so would be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Nobody knew what the hell that meant until this case, when poor Mr. Oakes was caught in possession of some cocaine and was automatically charged with trafficking, a much more serious offence than possession, because of a provision in the criminal code which held that if you had coke on you, you would be assumed to be a dealer. This violated the presumption of innocence, but the government argued that it was necessary to ignore that legal right in order to catch more coke dealers. The government lost, and just about every Charter case since then has used the test set out in this case.
Miller v. Jackson (1977, British Court of Queen’s Bench): in which the plaintiff, who was tired of having her windows broken by errant balls from the cricket field next door, lost her case more or less because the judge really really liked cricket. As evidence, I present to you the opening paragraph of Lord Denning’s judgment in the case:
“In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short . . . [y]et now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there anymore . . . [h]e has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket.
This newcomer has built . . . a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket.”
Bush v. Gore (2000, U.S. Supreme Court): in which the USSC decided, on the flimsiest legal grounds yet invented, to halt the Florida recount and hand the presidency to Bush. The judges were so keenly aware of the unprincipled, corrupt nature of their decision that they didn’t sign it and expressly stated that their reasoning should not be used as precedent in any future cases. A low point in the world of jurisprudence, and a dark stain on the world’s most powerful court.
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) — Slaves were classified as property. This case fueled the flames that began the Civil War.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) — This famous case laid the groundwork for the “separate but equal doctrine” that limited the rights of minorities for decades.
Schenck v. United States (1919) — “Clear and Present Danger” was established in this case as an acceptable reason for the limiting of free expression.
Gitlow v. New York (1925) — The Supreme court began in this case to identify the rights that were protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) — Prayer in classrooms was determined to be in violation of the First Amendment.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) — Free legal counsel was established in this case to be necessary in case the defendent in any criminal case cannot afford it.
Wesberry v. Sanders (1964) — The Supreme Court declared here that each person’s vote carries equal measure.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) — Marital privacy (specifically, the use of contraceptives) was protected by this case.
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) — Poll taxes were made illegal for state elections, as they violated the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) — The rights of the accused were upheld by this ruling. Thus, Miranda Rights!
In Re Gault (1967) — Children were granted some of the rights in criminal cases protected by the Bill of Rights.
Roe v. Wade (1973) — In this highly controversial case the Supreme Court laid down what states can and cannot control in regards to abortions.
United States v. Nixon (1974) — The President’s “Executive Priviledge” was limited by this case.
The “Persons” Case allowed women to be appointed to the Senate of Canada: http://www.collectionscanada.ca/famous5/053002_e.html
Tennessee vs John Scope (1925) — The case of a high school biology teacher charged with illegally teaching the theory of evolution brought evolution into the spotlight. It also, after a while, ushered in a new era of science. We’re on the opposite end of that gyre now. Beginning to think Yeats was right on, The Second Coming.
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co (1981) — court upheld punitive damages upwards of $125 million against Ford Motor for egregious negligence in failing to recall the Ford Pinto, the defects of which caused 27 deaths and serious injuries during car crashes. This was the first case, I believe, where this level of monetary ward was used as a punitive measure against a coporation for negligence.
Can’t believe I didn’t immediately think of that. I’d love to include more women-oriented cases, since this is being presented in the medium of an historically feminine craft.
I’m a little behind on my punitive law case history – what were the / have there been successful class action suits against fast food (McDonalds, that one with the coffee? or just for obesity?), smoking (anything for real, or just the imaginary John Grisham case so far?), gun manufacture, etc? I’d love to have a case that addresses that issue of personal vs. corporate responsibility, given the current state of mind re: Jamie Oliver’s school lunches, Super Size Me, etc.
http://www.gale.com/free_resources/whm/trials/
Class action against McD’s thrown out, 2004, as it should have been.
There have been many states, including Colorado, that have received verdicts against Phillip Morris to recoup healthcare costs from treating long term smokers in their end of days.
Dept of Justice Resource
In addition to Roe v Wade, maybe the case(s?) involving Morgentaler for the Canadian struggle for reproductive rights?
I think section2 and I could come up with some text to quickly summarize the Dudley & Stephens case. It won’t be a citation from the actual court documents, but trust me, you are going to want this on your quilt.
Are there any decisions that are significant in Canadian legal history? What I mean is, were things like Uni-frickin’-versal Health Care settled by court decisions? I’m thinking…Canadian content, legalization of gay marriage, not having conscription during the world wars, preservation of natural resources…I encourage you not to make a quilt memorializing the residual effects that the American justice system has had on Canada.
Or….wait…I don’t know how this works, but when the US says people can sue motor companies for punitive damages, does that mean it’s law in Canada too? Is there a Canadian case that introduced the idea of…punitivity? Punition? into Canadian Law?
Miller v. Jackson –> The language used was just Denning pulling yet another Denning. As for Oakes, I was surprised to learn that the case started off at the University of Western’s legal clinic.
I think you’re list is a bit suspect. What about Cooper?
The legalization of gay marriage was huge. Here, Ontario’s Court of Appeal did something that jurisdictions worldwide followed.
Morgentaler went to the SCC three times.
Hairy hand case. Yankee law, but still amusing, and precedent setting.
Good one! Can’t believe I forgot that case. That would be Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003, Ontario Court of Appeal).
I agree about Denning — that case was my suggestion, not so much because it was important (I don’t think it was), but because I find Denning ridiculous.
That one will be on for certain. A truly Canadian piece of law, as pointed out – important to have in any Canadian-made, legal-themed art piece.
Darlin’, my list is a LOT suspect. I am neither a lawyer nor a law student. At best I am currently exhibiting a casual interest as the basis for an artwork I’m hoping to create that will foster a dialogue on this subject.
In my own defence, there is a serious paucity of information on this topic on the Internet. Try going to Google and typing in anything along the lines of “top ten law cases” or “most significant legal cases” or “precedent setting law”. You get nothing in the way of a site that is trying to establish a canon of really important legal cases, globally or locally. The closest I’ve seen is the gale.com link that just posted on the top 100 legal cases pertaining to women in America.
I’m not saying it’s an easy list to compile, but they’re constantly trying to do this sort of thing with books and movies, so why not legal cases? Some are clearly more significant than others, and I think if I choose a more thematic tact, such as cases that make Canada legally distinct from the U.S., or feminist cases, or both, then I can narrow the field. For now, however, I remain open to all suggestions, even just the jokey ones (like the cricket ball case, which Paul threw in for giggles).
Regardless of the validity of the list, I’m pretty psyched to see that In re Gault made the list. Kid’s rights are difficult to study, let alone find in actual law, and the text of that opinion and in Roper v. Simons (outlawing the death penalty in those who were under 18 when they committed their crime) are on the right path.
If you’re interested in kid’s legal issues, feel free to visit my blog: http://childrensrightsandlaws.blogspot.com/