United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) (Docket No. 12-307), is a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court held that restricting U.S. federal interpretation of "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to opposite-sex unions, by Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), is unconstitutional ...
This Court takes judicial notice of a fourth case, which is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., No. 11,018 on that court's docket. In that case, the appellants challenge the appellees' refusal to admit certain Negro appellants to a segregated white school ...
2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina; No. 3, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; No. 4, Bolling et al. v. Sharpe et al., on ...
2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the ...
Aug 8, 2017 ... The case was suspended until a ruling was made by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Bolling et al. v. ... On January 2, 1880, the boy's father , Jacob Vines, filed suit in the U.S. Circuit Court at Cincinnati against the township school trustees and school teacher for forcibly excluding his son ...
Jan 18, 2011 ... IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Benjamin Bluman, et al.,. Plaintiffs, v. Federal Election Commission, ... PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. AND IN OPPOSITION TO. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Jacob M. Roth. D.C. Bar No.
Case opinion for US Supreme Court RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. ... the District Court's reasoning. 530 F. 3d 87 (CA2 2008). Three days later, the Court of Appeals voted 7 to 6 to deny rehearing en banc, over written dissents by Chief Judge Jacobs and Judge Cabranes.
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Burt Neuborne and Bruce J. Ennis for the American Civil Liberties Union; and by Albert J. Beveridge III, Harold Himmelman, and Roderic V. O. Boggs for Morris Udall et al. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed.
Spotswood Thomas Bolling et al. Respondent. C. Melvin Sharpe et al. ... Chief Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District ) did not contain an equal protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment ( which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v.