Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Iowa, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 660 (1849), is a 9-to-0 ruling which held that the Sullivan Line of 1816 was the accepted boundary between the states of Iowa and Missouri. The ruling resolved a long-standing border dispute between the two states, which had nearly erupted in military clashes during the so-called " Honey War " of 1839.
A federal judge in Texas has ordered a 55-year-old U.S. agency that caters to minority-owned businesses to serve people regardless of race, siding with white business owners who claimed the ...
The Chester White is the most durable of the white breeds; it can gain as much as 1.36 pounds (0.62 kg) a day and gain 1 pound (0.45 kg) for every 3 pounds (1.4 kg) of grain it is fed. Their pale color leaves Chester Whites prone to sunburn; they must be given access to shade in the summer. [1]
A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the U.S. Minority Business Development Agency, founded during the Nixon administration, must avail itself to disadvantaged entrepreneurs of all races and ...
African-American activist Robert Purvis refused to pay his Pennsylvania state taxes in protest against the state's denial of equal voting rights to black citizens around 1838, and then refused to pay the part of his property tax that went towards education in 1853 when his children were refused admission to the whites-only classrooms. [47]
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.
At the end of his ruling, Brown highlighted a 1970 case in which a judge ruled against a school district in El Paso, Texas, that had tried to prevent a male student from enrolling because his hair ...
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc. , 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff.