Question: Which case was ruled on first Selle v. Gibb or Edwards v. Aguillard ?

Context paragraphs:
Neo-creationism: Neo-creationism is a pseudoscientific movement which aims to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, by policy makers, by educators and by the scientific community.  It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture.  This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in "Edwards v. Aguillard" that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public-school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Edwards v Canada (AG): Edwards v Canada (AG)also known as the Persons Caseis a famous Canadian constitutional case that decided that women were eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate.  The legal case, put forward by the Government of Canada on the lobbying of a group of women known as the Famous Five, began as a reference case in the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled that women were not "qualified persons" and thus ineligible to sit in the Senate.  The case then went to the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada within the British Empire and Commonwealth.  The Judicial Committee overturned the Supreme Court's decision.

Peloza v. Capistrano School District: Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir.  1994), was a 1994 court case heard by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a creationist schoolteacher, John E. Peloza claimed that Establishment clause of the United States Constitution along with his own right to free speech was violated by the requirement to teach the "religion" of "evolutionism".  The court found against Peloza, finding that evolution was science not religion and that the Capistrano Unified School District school board were right to restrict his teaching of creationism in light of the 1987 Supreme Court decision "Edwards v. Aguillard".  One of the three appeals judges, Poole, partially dissented from the majority's free speech and due process opinions.  It was one in a long line court cases involving the teaching of creationism which have found against creationists.  Peloza appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.

Webster v. New Lenox School District: "Webster v. New Lenox School District", 917 F.2d 1004 (7th Cir.  1990) was a court case in Illinois, in which a social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class.  The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case the teaching of "creation science" was illegal, having been ruled to violate the establishment clause in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Edwards v. Aguillard", 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Persons Day: Persons Day is an annual celebration in Canada, held on October 18 each year.  The day commemorates the case of "Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General)", more commonly known as "The Persons Case"–a famous Canadian constitutional case decided on October 18, 1929 by the Judicial Committee of the Imperial Privy Council, at that time the court of last resort for Canada, which held that women were eligible to sit in the Canadian Senate.

Epperson v. Arkansas: Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.  The Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma."  The Supreme Court declared the Arkansas statute unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  After this decision, some jurisdictions passed laws that required the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution was taught.  These were also ruled unconstitutional by the Court in the 1987 case "Edwards v. Aguillard".

Maryland v. Shatzer: Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under "Edwards v. Arizona" ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody.  The ruling distinguished "Edwards", which had not specified a limit.

Edwards v National Coal Board: Edwards v. National Coal Board was an important case in English case law.  The 1949 case revolved around whether it was "reasonably practicable" to prevent even the smallest possibility of a rock fall in a coal mine.

Edwards v. Aguillard: Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism.  The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that where evolutionary science was taught in public schools, creation science must also be taught, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.  It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction".

Selle v. Gibb: Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir.  1984) was a landmark ruling on the doctrine of striking similarities.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that while copying must be proved by access and substantial similarity, where evidence of access does not exist, striking similarities may raise an inference of copying by showing that the work could not have been the result of independent creation, coincidence, or common source.  Striking similarity alone is not enough to infer access.  The similarity must preclude independent creation in order to infer access.

Supporting paragraphs: Selle v. Gibb Edwards v. Aguillard
Answer: Selle v. Gibb