Question: Both the McCulloch v. Maryland case and the In re Gault decision were decided by what body of government?
Context: Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated.  The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation.  The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. ("Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City"), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of ("Lochner v. New York"), requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result.  While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.  ("Armstrong v. United States", 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)) However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.  The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland.  Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States.  The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution. The John Marshall House is a historic house museum and National Historic Landmark at 818 East Marshall Street in Richmond, Virginia.  It was the home of Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall, who was appointed to the court in 1801 by President John Adams and served for the rest of his life, writing such influential decisions as "Marbury v. Madison" (1803) and "McCulloch v. Maryland" (1819). Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs is a seminal case in administrative law decided by the Court of Appeal of Singapore in 1988.  The Court decided the appeal in the appellants' favour on a technical ground, but considered "obiter dicta" the reviewability of government power in preventive detention cases under the Internal Security Act ("ISA").  The case approved the application by the court of an objective test in the review of government discretion under the ISA, stating that all power has legal limits and the rule of law demands that the courts should be able to examine the exercise of discretionary power.  This was a landmark shift from the position in the 1971 High Court decision "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister of Home Affairs", which had been an authority for the application of a subjective test until it was overruled by "Chng Suan Tze". Collet v. Collet, 2 U.S. 294 (1791), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that was the earliest appellate case docketed although it was never heard by the Court. " Van Staphorst v. Maryland" was the first case docketed with the court. " West v. Barnes" was the first case decided by the court. Woollard v. Sheridan (Maryland Civil Case L-10-2068), filed in appellate court as Woollard v Gallagher (CA4 Case 12-1437) and filed at the United States Supreme Court under the same name (docket #13-42) is a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board.  Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional.  The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision. West v. Barnes, 2 U.S. 401 (1791), was the first United States Supreme Court decision and the earliest case calling for oral argument. " Van Staphorst v. Maryland" (1791) was docketed prior to "West v. Barnes" but settled before the Court heard the case: "West" was argued on August 2, 1791 and decided on August 3, 1791. " Collet v. Collet" (1791) was the first appellate case docketed with the Court but was dropped before it could be heard.  Supreme Court Reporter Alexander Dallas did not publish the justices' full opinions in "West v. Barnes", which were published in various newspapers around the country at the time, but he published an abbreviated summary of the decisions. Hoffman v. Jones, (Fla. 1973), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Florida that was the first adoption of the comparative negligence rule in negligence law through judicial decision as opposed to adoption through statute.  In the wrongful death case of Hoffman v. Jones, attorney Sammy Cacciatore Jr. was instrumental in causing the Florida Supreme Court to adopt for the first time the comparative negligence rule in negligence law.William Harrison Jones Jr. was killed by a Pav-A-Way Corporation truck driven by Philip Francis Hoffman Jr.  It was the first case in the nation in which a state supreme court abandoned the almost-150-year-old doctrine of contributory negligence, which precluded an injured victim from recovery if the victim had contributed to the incident to any degree.  The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of “pure” comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person.  The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) , was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.  The court's opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas, a noted proponent of children's rights. Clerke v. Harwood, 3 U.S. 342 (1797) , was a United States Supreme Court case that followed the court's decision in Ware v. Hylton, concerning debts owed to British subjects.  In the Ware case, the Supreme Court had reversed a decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, and restored the decision of a Maryland trial court.
Answer: Supreme Court