Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To obtain a land grant, it must be authorized under either the national constitution or laws, or the laws of the Mexican government prior to independence. Saddler v. Republic, Dallam 610 (1844). Although it takes more than one to be in an affray, a conviction against one will stand even if the others are acquitted. Binge v. Smith, Dallam 616 ...
The associate justices were the judges of the eight district courts of Texas. The district judges, whose first session was January 13, 1840, served with the chief justice as associate justices from January 13, 1840 to December 29, 1845, when Texas was admitted into the United States:
The first session in which the Texas Supreme Court met was the January 1840 session, in Austin. [43] The Court consisted of Chief Justice Rusk, and District Judges Shelby, W.J. Jones, Mills, and Hemphill. The clerk was W. Fairfax Gray. [44] The court disposed of 49 cases on its docket, but issued only 18 opinions. [45]
The case focused on the scope of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling called Nieves v. Bartlett, which said plaintiffs generally cannot bring retaliation claims when police make a lawful arrest.
The Supreme Court of Texas is the court of last resort for civil matters (including juvenile delinquency cases, which are categorized as civil under the Texas Family Code) in the U.S. state of Texas. A different court, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , is the court of last resort in criminal matters.
[7] Both the District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the Inclusive Communities Project, holding that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [8] The Texas Department of Housing and Community then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. [9]
A federal judge in Texas struck down the law in late February, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed that ruling, leading the federal government to appeal to the Supreme Court. The ...
In 2012, the Supreme Court invalidated provisions of a tough immigration law enacted in Arizona. Only two of the justices who were in the majority in that case are still on the court: Chief ...