Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Later that day, the 11th Circuit Court refused to rehear the case as a whole . Two of the twelve judges wrote dissenting opinions, but the actual vote is not public record. On March 30, the Court agreed to consider a petition by the Schindlers parents to have a new hearing to decide whether the feeding tube should be reinserted.
The ruling of the Court was later overturned and repudiated in a series of decisions handed down in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Specifically, Hammer v. Dagenhart was overruled in 1941 in the case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941). The Court in the Darby case
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 U.S. Supreme Court issued several major decisions over the course of 2024.. Its rulings include those that have pushed back on the Biden administration's attempted change of Title IX ...
Burdick v. United States: 236 U.S. 79 (1915) Legal effect of a pardon: Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio: 236 U.S. 230 (1915) free speech and the censorship of motion pictures: Guinn v. United States: 238 U.S. 347 (1915) constitutionality of Oklahoma's "grandfather law" used to disenfranchise African-American voters ...
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 25 October 2024. 1819 United States Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 21 – March 3, 1819 Decided March 6, 1819 Full case name James McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, John James [a] Citations 17 U.S. 316 (more) 4 Wheat. 316; 4 L. Ed. 579; 1819 ...
See California v. U.S. 438 U.S. 645 (1978) (Reclamation Act) and Schaffer v. Weist (Special education). Here, the motivation for State compliance is that absent state compliance with federal conditions, the state loses significant federal funding. The second method of encouraging states to implement federal programs is described in New York v
In striking contrast to the situation in [Oneida II], the Catawba Act represents an explicit redefinition of the relationship between the Federal Government and the Catawbas; an intentional termination of the special federal protection for the Tribe and its members; and a plain statement that state law applies to the Catawbas as to all “other ...