Question: Which court preceded over both Cooley v. Board of Wardens and Schmerber v. California?

Context paragraphs:
Spaids v. Cooley: Spaids v. Cooley, 113 U.S. 278 (1885) , was regarding a lawsuit brought to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia on December 13, 1876, by Chauncey D. Spaids against Dennis N. Cooley to recover 593.70, with interest from July 1, 1868.  The declaration contained the common money counts and nothing more.  There were two pleas, one denying indebtedness and the other averring that the alleged cause of action did not accrue within three years before the suit.  The plaintiff's reply joins issue on the first plea and as to the second plea avers that the defendant promised to pay the debt named in the declaration within three years next before the commencement of the suit.  At the trial, the jury found "the issue in favor of the defendant", and there was a judgment accordingly at special term.  The plaintiff appealed to the general term, which affirmed the judgment, and he brought the case here by a writ of error.

Criminal law in the Waite Court: During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).

Cooley v. Board of Wardens: Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Pennsylvania law requiring all ships entering or leaving Philadelphia to hire a local pilot did not violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  Those who did not comply with the law had been required to pay a fee.  "It is the opinion of a majority of the court that the mere grant to Congress of the power to regulate commerce, did not deprive the States of power to regulate pilots, and that although Congress had legislated on this subject, its legislation manifests an intention, with a single exception, not to regulate this subject, but to leave its regulation to the several states," wrote Justice Curtis for the majority.

Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3: Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, A-2774-00T3 (2001), is a New Jersey Superior Court case in which Dendrite International, Inc., a purveyor of computer software used in the pharmaceutical industry, brought a John Doe lawsuit against individuals who had anonymously posted criticisms of the company on a Yahoo message board.  When Presiding Chancery Judge Kenneth MacKenzie rejected one of Dendrite's requests to compel Yahoo to reveal the identity of an anonymous defendant, Dendrite appealed.  The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, and in doing so, created a set of guidelines for determining the circumstances under which an anonymous online speaker may be unmasked.  This standard has since been applied to other cases, such as "Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe", "Gallucci v. New Jersey On-Line LLC", "Independent Newspapers v. Brodie", and "The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc."

Cunningham v. California: Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), held that the rule first announced in "Apprendi v. New Jersey", 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , applies to California's Determinate Sentencing Law.  In California, a judge may choose one of three sentences for a crime—a low, middle, or high term.  There must exist specific aggravating factors about the crime before a judge may impose the high term.  Under the "Apprendi" rule, as explained in "Blakely v. Washington", 542 U.S. 296 (2004) , any fact that increases the punishment above that which the judge may impose without that fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.  In "People v. Black", the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that under "Blakely", the jury must find the additional facts necessary for the judge to impose the high term under the DSL.  In "Cunningham", the U.S. Supreme Court overruled "Black", ruling that "Blakely" applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme.

Hollingsworth v. Perry: Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.  The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.  This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.  After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.  The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.  As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

A&amp;M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2000): A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 (2000), was the district court case which preceded the landmark intellectual property case of "A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.", 239 F.3d 1004 (2001).  The case was heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Napster appealed this case to United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

William E. Grauer: William E. Grauer (“Bill Grauer”) is a lawyer in New York and California who served for 22 years, from 1988 to 2010, as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Discipline for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.  Grauer was responsible for supervising discipline cases against attorneys in federal court.  He is also a former Chair of the Ethics Committee of the San Diego County Bar Association.  Until his recent retirement, Grauer was a partner at the law firm of Cooley LLP specializing in securities litigation and the PSLRA, and has argued cases in the United States Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court and multiple times in the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Schmerber v. California: Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for searches that intrude into the human body.  Until "Schmerber", the Supreme Court had not yet clarified whether state police officers must procure a search warrant before taking blood samples from criminal suspects.  Likewise, the Court had not yet clarified whether blood evidence taken against the wishes of a criminal suspect may be used against that suspect in the course of a criminal prosecution.

United States v. Matlock: United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when the police obtained voluntary consent from a third party who possessed common authority over the premises sought to be searched.  The ruling of the court established the "co-occupant consent rule," which was later explained by "Illinois v. Rodriguez", 497 U.S. 177 (1990) and distinguished later by "Georgia v. Randolph" (2006), in which the court held that a third party could not consent over the objections of a present co-occupant, and "Fernandez v. California" (2014), where the court held when the objecting co-resident is removed for objectively reasonable purposes (such as lawful arrest), the remaining resident may validly consent to search.

Supporting paragraphs: Cooley v. Board of Wardens Schmerber v. California
Answer: United States Supreme Court