Question: Were Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. and Terry v. Ohio decisions made by the same court?

Context paragraphs:
Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc.: Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc., 570 F. 3d 1096 (D. Or.  Nov. 8, 2005), is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Ninth Circuit held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) rules that Yahoo!, Inc., as an Internet service provider cannot be held responsible for failure to remove objectionable content posted to their website by a third party.  Plaintiff Cecilia Barnes made claims arising out of Defendant Yahoo!, Inc.'s alleged failure to honor promises to remove offensive content about the plaintiff posted by a third party.  The content consisted of a personal profile with nude photos of the Plaintiff and her contact information.  The United States District Court for the District of Oregon had dismissed Barnes' complaint.

Glen Rock Historic District: Glen Rock Historic District is a national historic district located at Glen Rock in York County, Pennsylvania.  The district includes 287 contributing buildings, 1 contributing site, and 4 contributing structures in the central business district and surrounding residential area of Glen Rock.  The houses are mostly 2 1/2-story, vernacular wood frame buildings, built between 1838 and 1945, with some notable Queen Anne and Bungalow/craftsman style dwellings.  Notable buildings include the Philip Shaffer House (c. 1840), the "Castle" (1889), Peoples Bank of Glen Rock (1912), Glen Theatre (1913), Glen Rock Hose and Ladder Company (1904), Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church (1905), Immanuel United Methodist Church (1926), Industrial Sewing Company (1916), Glen Traditionals building (1921), and Accufab building (c. 1938).  A contributing structure is the Northern Central Railway bridge (c. 1871).

Michigan v. Long: Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended "Terry v. Ohio", 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with "reasonable suspicion".  The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground, allowing U.S. Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions unless they explicitly appealed to state laws.

Mental capacity in England and Wales: In the Law of England and Wales, best interest decisions are decisions made on behalf of people who do not have mental capacity to make them for themselves at the time the decision needs to be taken.  Someone who has the capacity to make a decision is said to be "capacious".  Since 2007, there has been a dedicated court with jurisdiction over mental capacity: the Court of Protection, although it mostly deals with adults.  Most applications to make decisions on behalf of a child are still dealt with by the Family Court.

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct.  It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society.  This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct."

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment "if" the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.  Under the rubric of "Terry v. Ohio", 392 U.S. 1 (1968) , the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.

Stop-and-frisk in New York City: The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at times searching civilians on the street for weapons and other contraband.  This is what is known in other places in the United States as the "Terry" stop.  The rules for stop, question, and frisk are found in the state's criminal procedure law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of "Terry v. Ohio".

Barnes v Addy: Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244 was a decision of the Court of Appeal in Chancery.  It established that, in English trusts law, third parties could be liable for a breach of trust in two circumstances, referred to as the two 'limbs' of "Barnes v Addy": knowing receipt and knowing assistance.

West v. Barnes: 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.

Terry v. Ohio: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

Supporting paragraphs: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Terry v. Ohio
Answer: yes