Question: Which court decision occurred first, Terry v. Ohio or Presser v. Illinois?

Context articles: Review of court decision in Indonesia
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada
Stop-and-frisk in New York City
United States v. Masonite Corp.
Michigan v. Long
Teo Soh Lung v Minister for Home Affairs
Presser v. Illinois
Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Adams
Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy

Review of court decision or abbreviated PK (Indonesian: "Peninjauan Kembali" ) is a legal action that can be taken by the convict (the person subject to the penalty) in a legal case against a court decision final and binding on the judicial system in Indonesia.
 The court ruling has called legally enforceable decision of the District Court is not filed an appeal, the decision of the High Court was not filed an appeal (legal action in the Supreme Court), or the decision of the Supreme Court.
 PK can not be taken to court decisions that have permanent legal force if the decision was a decision that states the defendant (person charged in the proceedings) are free from all charges.
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.
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".
United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the "General Electric" case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing.
 The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent "Interstate Circuit" hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.
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.
Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs is the name of two cases of the Singapore courts, a High Court decision delivered in 1989 and the 1990 judgment in the appeal from that decision to the Court of Appeal.
 The cases were concerned with the constitutionality of amendments made to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and the Internal Security Act ("ISA") in 1989.
 The latter statute authorizes detention without trial on security grounds.
 These amendments had the effect of changing the law on judicial review of executive discretion under the ISA by re-establishing the subjective test enunciated in the 1971 High Court decision "Lee Mau Seng v. Minister for Home Affairs" which had been overruled in 1988 by "Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs", and limiting the right of judicial review to ensuring compliance with procedures specified in the ISA.
 In other words, the amendments were intended to render the exercise of power by the President and the Minister for Home Affairs under the ISA to detain persons without trial not justiciable by the courts.
 Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that these amendments were constitutional because Parliament had done nothing more than enact the rule of law relating to the law applicable to judicial review.
 Thus, the amendments validly operated to deprive the applicant Teo Soh Lung of the ability to apply to the courts for judicial review.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States."
 Saying the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution limited only the power of Congress and the national government to control firearms, not that of the state and that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to except to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
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."
Terry v. Adams 345 U.S. 461 (1953), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held white-only pre-primary elections to be unconstitutional.
 It was the last in a series of court cases addressing the system of white primaries designed to disfranchise Southern black voters.
Barrett v. Fontbonne Academy is a Massachusetts Superior Court decision of December 16, 2015, that found that a Roman Catholic secondary school violated the state's laws against discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender when it withdrew an offer of employment from a candidate when officials learned he was in a civil same-sex marriage.
 It was the first decision in the United States since the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage accomplished by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Obergefell v. Hodges" the previous June to consider the competing claims of discrimination in employment and the protections afforded religious institutions.