Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
They also passed three major reform bills in an attempt to further comply with the McCleary ruling. [6] Despite these changes, the Supreme Court did not find the State in compliance. On January 9, 2014 the Supreme Court issued an order setting a deadline of April 30, 2014 for the legislature to come up with an adequate funding plan. [7]
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. Tennessee Copper Co. as precedent ...
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.
Every year, each of the 50 United States state supreme courts decides hundreds of cases. Of those cases dealing with state law, a few significantly shape or re-shape the law of their state or are so influential that they later become models for decisions of other states or the federal government, or are noted for being rejected by other jurisdictions.
The court also held that its decision superseded state law, and that Washington's Game and Fisheries Department may be required to make laws upholding the ruling. [1] The decision was 6–3 in favor of Washington. John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. [2] Philip Lacovara defended the Non-Indian Fishermen Association in the case. [2]
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the Court held that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily ...
Tribal entities assert that Maverick Gaming's lawsuit transcends sports betting, claiming that weakening Washington's gaming compacts could endanger their sovereignty. [1] This controversy coincides with a Supreme Court review of a challenge against the Indian Child Welfare Act, with both legal disputes being represented by the same law firm. [1]
Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state.