Top 10 US Common Law Cases

US law has developed through legislation, constitutional interpretation and judicial decisions. The Supreme Court of the United States has played a central role in shaping American law, establishing principles that govern the relationship between government and citizens, the administration of justice and the powers of federal and state authorities.

We have selected top 10 landmark Supreme Court decisions that are important for understanding US law. These cases cover constitutional law, criminal procedure, civil procedure and federal jurisdiction, and are particularly relevant to students preparing for the Uniform Bar Examination (UBE).

1. Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, giving federal courts the authority to declare legislation unconstitutional.

The case arose when William Marbury sought a court order compelling the Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver his judicial commission. The Supreme Court held that although Marbury was entitled to his commission, the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 under which he sought relief was unconstitutional. The decision established the Supreme Court's authority to review legislation and determine whether it complies with the US Constitution.

2. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

McCulloch v. Maryland established that Congress possesses implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause and that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state law.

The case concerned Maryland's attempt to impose a tax on the Second Bank of the United States. The Supreme Court held that Congress had constitutional authority to establish the bank and that Maryland could not tax it. The decision strengthened federal authority and established an important principle of federal supremacy.

3. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education held that racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case challenged the constitutionality of racial segregation in American public education. The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal, overturning the constitutional basis of segregation in public schools. The decision became a landmark in the American civil rights movement.

4. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona established that police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights before conducting custodial interrogation.

The case concerned Ernesto Miranda, who confessed to a crime during police questioning without being informed of his rights. The Supreme Court held that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to legal counsel. These safeguards protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

5. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Mapp v. Ohio established that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is generally inadmissible in state criminal proceedings.

The case involved police officers who searched Dollree Mapp's home without a valid search warrant. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in criminal trials, applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision strengthened Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

6. Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Terry v. Ohio established that police may briefly stop and question a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and conduct a limited weapons search where they reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous.

The case arose when a police officer stopped and searched three men whom he suspected of preparing to commit a robbery. The Supreme Court held that such limited searches can be constitutionally permissible without probable cause. The decision established the legal basis for what is commonly known as a stop-and-frisk search.

7. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright established that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to appointed legal counsel in state felony criminal proceedings.

The case concerned Clarence Gideon, who was charged with a felony in Florida but could not afford a lawyer. After being refused court-appointed counsel, he represented himself and was convicted. The Supreme Court held that the right to legal representation is fundamental to a fair trial and that states must provide lawyers to defendants who cannot afford them in felony cases.

8. Pennoyer v. Neff (1878)

Pennoyer v. Neff established traditional territorial principles governing personal jurisdiction and the authority of state courts over individuals and property.

The case concerned a judgment entered against Neff in Oregon without proper personal service within the state. The Supreme Court held that a state court generally could not exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant without proper service or another recognised basis of jurisdiction. The decision established traditional jurisdictional principles that were later substantially developed by subsequent cases.

9. International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945)

International Shoe Co. v. Washington established the minimum contacts test for determining whether a state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant.

The case concerned a Delaware corporation that employed sales representatives in Washington but had no physical offices there. The Supreme Court held that a defendant must have sufficient minimum contacts with the state for the exercise of jurisdiction to be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The decision established the foundation of modern personal jurisdiction doctrine.

10. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins established that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must generally apply state substantive law rather than create or apply general federal common law.

The case concerned an accident involving Tompkins and a train operated by Erie Railroad in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court rejected the doctrine of general federal common law and held that federal courts must apply the substantive law of the relevant state in diversity cases. The decision remains fundamental to the relationship between federal and state law.