Citation network
Elkins Vs. Moreno
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 19, 1978
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 647 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Elkins v. MorenoSearch
-
U.S. 647 (1978) Elkins v. MorenoSearch
-
the intent needed to acquire Maryland domicile. Therefore, this case is controlled by principles announced in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
U. S. 441 , as limited by Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
the ground that the University's procedures for determining in-state status violated principles established in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
U. S. 441 (1973), and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Moreno v. UniversitySearch
-
F.2d 573 (CA4 1977). We granted certiorari to consider whether this decision was in conflict with Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
petitioner argues that the University's in-state policy should have been tested under standards set out in Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
Cf. Nyquist v. MaucletSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 1 (1977). Although the parties argue this case in terms of due process, equal protection, and Vlandis versus SalfiSearch
-
a decision on the continuing vitality of Vlandis be avoided unless it is really necessary. See, e.g., Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
Railroad Comm'n v. PullmanSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
which States are bound to recognize under the Supremacy Clause. See Nyquist v. MaucletSearch
-
Seren v. DouglasSearch
-
Gosschalk v. GosschalkSearch
-
N.J. 73, 75-82, 145 A.2d 327, 328-331 (1958) (dissenting opinion). But cf. Williams v. WilliamsSearch
-
Moreno v. UniversitySearch
-
The University was dismissed from the suit on the authority of Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
not really determined by the Maryland common law of domicile, and therefore that this case is governed by Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
U. S. 749 (1975), not Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
different from those briefed or argued here. For this reason, we also think certification proper. See, e.g., Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
We need not decide whether the District Court's failure to abstain was erroneous, for, as we noted in Bellotti v. BairdSearch
-
and affirmed by a court of appeals whose jurisdiction includes the State whose law is construed, see, e.g, Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
Ameeriar v. INSSearch
-
Brownell v. CarijaSearch
-
Brownell v. GutnayerSearch
-
the Maryland Court of Appeals answered the certified question, and a supplemental decision was rendered in Toll v. MorenoSearch
-
District of Maryland held that the University's policy creates an irrebuttable presumption in contravention of Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
is allowed to present any and all evidence relevant to his or her status as a citizen or immigrant alien. In Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
but then make plainly relevant evidence of such bona fides inadmissible. As in Starns v. MalkersonSearch
-
capable of becoming domiciliaries for other purposes, such as divorce and personal jurisdiction. While, in Williamson v. OsentonSearch
-
cannot be domiciled in Maryland for tuition purposes, no irrebuttable presumption would be presented. In Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
Because the tuition policy of the University of Maryland is controlled by Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
and not Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
decides that nonimmigrant aliens holding G-4 visas cannot establish Maryland domicile for tuition purposes, Starns v. MalkersonSearch
-
on the other hand, resolution of respondents' equal protection claim may rest on the proper interpretation of Nyquist v. MaucletSearch
-
applied Supreme Court precedents on irrebuttable presumptions, disregarded the principles articulated in Weinberger v. SalfiSearch
-
s concern with cost equalization alone would seem sufficient to support the line drawn by the University. See Starns v. MalkersonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Elkins v. MorenoSearch
-
and Vlandis v. SalfiSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
the Supremacy Clause. See Nyquist v. MaucletSearch
-
Williams v. WilliamsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial