Citation network
Martinez Vs. Bynum
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 1983
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 321 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Martinez v. BynumSearch
-
U.S. 321 (1983) Martinez v. BynumSearch
-
s fees. App. 3a, 7a. After a hearing on the merits, the District Court granted judgment for the defendants. Arredondo v. BrocketteSearch
-
been careful to distinguish such durational residence requirements from bona fide residence requirements. In Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
id. at 394 U. S. 638 , n. 21. In Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
Id. at 405 U. S. 343 . See also Memorial Hospital v. MaricopaSearch
-
bona fide residence requirements in the field of public education. The Connecticut statute before us in Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
Last Term, in Plyler v. DoeSearch
-
independent justification for local residence requirements in the public school context. As we explained in Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
Id. at 418 U. S. 741 -742 (quoting San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
Inhabitants of Warren v. InhabitantsSearch
-
In Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
d) until 1977, it had been a feature of Texas common law since at least 1905. See, e.g., De Leon v. HarlingenSearch
-
school purposes if his presence in the school district was for the sole purpose of attending school. See, e.g., Yale v. WestSearch
-
School District Board v. ThayerSearch
-
Wheeler v. BurrowSearch
-
School District No. 1 v. BragdonSearch
-
In McCarthy v. PhiladelphiaSearch
-
Vlandis, the Court upheld a domicile requirement for resident tuition rates at the University of Minnesota. Starns v. MalkersonSearch
-
Vlandis, we upheld a domicile requirement for resident tuition rates at the University of Washington. Sturgis v. WashingtonSearch
-
Ibid. In Memorial Hospital v. MaricopaSearch
-
County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974), we recognized that a one-year residence requirement was consistent with Shapiro v. ThompsonSearch
-
U. S. 618 (1969), and Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
to an indigent nonresident defendant at a criminal trial where a deprivation of liberty occurs. See Argersinger v. HamlinSearch
-
U. S. 202 , 457 U. S. 221 (1982) (citing San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSearch
-
Vlandis v. KlineSearch
-
Moore v. EastSearch
-
U. S. 494 , 431 U. S. 506 (1977) (plurality opinion). Unlike the housing ordinance we invalidated in Moore v. EastSearch
-
Mills v. BartlettSearch
-
Snyder v. PittsSearch
-
Whitney v. StateSearch
-
Harrison v. ChesshirSearch
-
Prince v. InmanSearch
-
Kiehne v. AtwoodSearch
-
Bullfrog Alarina, Inc. v. LentzSearch
-
Estate of Schoof v. SchoofSearch
-
Hughes v. IllinoisSearch
-
Jenkins v. NorthSearch
-
Thomas v. WarnerSearch
-
Pfoutz v. ComfordSearch
-
cases, of course, it is the intention of the parent or guardian on behalf of the child that is relevant. See Deterly v. WellsSearch
-
proper course in such a situation would be to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, see The Monrosa v. CarbonSearch
-
S. 180 , 359 U. S. 183 (1959), or to remand for further Page 461 U. S. 337 proceedings. See Toll v. MorenoSearch
-
Penfield v. ChesapeakeSearch
-
Texas v. FloridaSearch
-
is not enough to establish a residence. Dwyer v. MatsonSearch
-
S.W.2d 524, 525 (Tex.Crim.App.1971) (citation omitted). See, e.g., Brown v. BouldenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial