Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
congressional power to limit Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction: Texas v. White: 74 U.S. 700 (1869) constitutionality of state secession Ex parte Yerger: 75 U.S. 85 (1869) habeas corpus case that became moot when Yerger was released before the court ruling; therefore not actually heard by the Supreme Court Paul v. Virginia: 75 U.S. 168 (1869)
New Mexico v. Texas: 275 U.S. 279 (1927) determination of the border between New Mexico and Texas: Miller v. Schoene: 276 U.S. 272 (1928) Substantive due process, takings clause Black and White Taxicab Co. v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab Co. 276 U.S. 518 (1928) what law is to be applied when courts sit in diversity jurisdiction: Olmstead v. United ...
Handly's Lessee v. Anthony, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 374 (1820), was a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the proper boundary between the states of Indiana and Kentucky was the low-water mark on the western and northwestern bank of the Ohio River. Motion by the plaintiff, Handly's lessee, to eject inhabitants of a ...
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1869. [1] The case's notable political dispute involved a claim by the Reconstruction era government of Texas that U.S. bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War.
When Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Texas law, he said it was needed to protect free speech in what he termed the new public square. ... Environmental Law. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court on June ...
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno: 2006: Held that state taxpayers do not have standing to challenge to state tax laws in federal court. 9–0 Massachusetts v. EPA: 2007: States have standing to sue the EPA to enforce their views of federal law, in this case, the view that carbon dioxide was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Cited Georgia v.
(The Center Square) – The state of Texas has two more wins in court, in a sweeping small business federal regulatory action that a federal judge ruled is unconstitutional and a federal agency ...
Agreement with the Court's judgment does not guarantee agreement with the reasoning expressed in its opinion. A justice is not considered in agreement if they dissented even in part. Agreement percentages are based only on the listed cases in which a justice participated and are rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one percentage point.