Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: On appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky: Holding; Where a river is said to be the boundary between two states, the boundary properly extended to the low water mark of the opposite shore and no higher; plaintiff's motion of ejectment based on title granted by the state of Kentucky was denied.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), [1] was a suit brought before the Supreme Court of the United States that sought to settle two questions: . What is the correct boundary between the two states and, if the boundary was inaccurately set, can the state ask the court to change it?
This page was last edited on 20 January 2024, at 11:32 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U.S. 593 (1933), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the boundary between Vermont and New Hampshire is neither the thread of the channel of the Connecticut River nor the top of the west bank of the river, but rather the west bank of the river at the mean low-water mark.
From a blockbuster Second Amendment decision to a more technical case about retaliatory arrests, sharp disagreements have emerged on the Supreme Court over the reasoning of recent rulings ...
This statute provides that lower federal courts may also hear cases where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, [1]: 19–20 with the exception of disputes between two or more states. When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases. In one ...
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that: A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon is considered a private matter, unknown to and unable to be acted on by the court. No formal acceptance is necessary to give effect to the ...
A federal district judge sided with immigrant rights groups opposed to the policy, but the San Francisco-based 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed it to remain in effect as the ...