Web Results

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that San Antonio Independent School District's financing system, which was based on local property taxes, was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal ...

caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-supreme-court/1676871.html

Aug 29, 2014 ... Petitioner, Zachry Construction Corporation, contracted to construct a wharf on the Bayport Ship Channel for respondent, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, Texas. The wharf ...... Id. at 840. 49. 320 S.W.3d 829, passim; Reply Brief of Petitioners Kirby Lake Development, Ltd., et al. at 11–14. 50.

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/234/342

These suits were brought in the Commerce Court by the Houston, East & West Texas Railway Company, and the Houston & Shreveport Railroad Company, and by .... Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196, 224; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 , 446; County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U.S. 691, 696, 697; Smith v. Alabama, 124  ...

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/295/330

295 U.S. 330 (55 S.Ct. 758, 79 L.Ed. 1468). RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD et al. v. ALTON R. CO. et al. No. 566. Argued: March 13, 14, 1935. Decided: May 6, 1935. opinion, ROBERTS [HTML]. Syllabus from pages 330-334 intentionally omitted. The Attorney General, and Messrs. Harold M. Stephens, Asst. Atty. Gen.

law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/30/1398.html

Dec 15, 1994 ... CHRISTIAN S. TUFFLI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. ( Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 657054, Kevin W. Midlam, Judge.) ( Opinion by Huffman, J., with Kremer, P. J., and Work, J., concurring.).

www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/482/569

Petitioner Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles adopted a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" within the "Central Terminal Area" at .... Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 503 (1985). A statute may be invalidated on its face, however, only if the overbreadth is "substantial." Houston v.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-144_758b.pdf

Jun 18, 2015 ... See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Syllabus. WALKER, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF. MOTOR VEHICLES BOARD, ET AL. v. TEXAS. DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS,. INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI ...

www-tc.pbs.org/beyondbrown/brownpdfs/pearsonmurray.pdf

Pearson, et al v. Murray. 182 A. 590, 169 Md. 478, 103 A.L.R. 706. No. 53. Jan. 15, 1936. Argued before Bond, C. J., and Urner, Offutt, Parke, Sloan, Mitchell, Shehan, and ... The officers and governing board of the University of Maryland appeal from an order for the issue of the writ of mandamus commanding them to admit a.

www.famous-trials.com/brownvtopeka/666-home

The students represented in Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka. (L to R: Vicki Henderson, Donald Henderson, Linda Brown, James Emanuel, Nancy Todd, and Katherine Carper) Photo by Carl Iwasaki/Time Life Pictures/Getty Images. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka is widely known as the Supreme Court ...