Citation network
Tennessee Vs. Lane
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 17, 2004
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2003 Tennessee V. LaneSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Tennessee V. LaneSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Amendment immunity grounds, the Sixth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSearch
-
and (2), if so, whether it acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Kimel v. FloridaSearch
-
of the Fourteenth Amendment. E.g., Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
to the courts here at issue, infringements of which are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. See, e.g., Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
E.g., South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
s Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. HibbsSearch
-
U. S., at 379. A number of affirmative obligations flow from this principle. Cases such as Boddie, Griffin v. IllinoisSearch
-
U. S. 12 , and Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
in which Kennedy and Thomas, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., and Thomas, J., filed dissenting opinions. Tennessee v. LaneSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Tennessee V. LaneSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 02-1667 Tennessee, Petitioner V. GeorgeSearch
-
Sixth Circuit entered an order holding the case in abeyance pending our decision in Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSearch
-
s failure to accommodate his disability in a child custody proceeding. Popovich v. CuyahogaSearch
-
Kimel v. FloridaSearch
-
immunity. The question, then, is whether Congress had the power to give effect to its intent. In Fitzpatrick v. BitzerSearch
-
See also City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
with a discriminatory purpose that would render it unconstitutional under the rule of Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. FeeneySearch
-
to our decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSearch
-
test in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. CollegeSearch
-
Patent Remedy Act), a statutory amendment Congress enacted in the wake of our decision in Atascadero State Hospital v. ScanlonSearch
-
Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
constitutional guarantees, infringements of which are subject to more searching judicial review. See, e.g., Dunn v. BlumsteinSearch
-
Skinner v. OklahomaSearch
-
by removing obstacles to their full participation in judicial proceedings. Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Taylor v. LouisianaSearch
-
Enterprise Co. v. SuperiorSearch
-
of disabled persons by state agencies in a variety of settings, including unjustified commitment, e.g., Jackson v. IndianaSearch
-
the abuse and neglect of persons committed to state mental health hospitals, Youngberg v. RomeoSearch
-
and irrational discrimination in zoning decisions, Cleburne v. CleburneSearch
-
provision of public services and access to public facilities was an appropriate subject for prophylactic legislation. v. TheSearch
-
to the class of cases implicating the accessibility of judicial services, we need go no further. See United States v. RainesSearch
-
Appeals is therefore affirmed. It is so ordered. Footnote 1 In Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. MetcalfSearch
-
cf. Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. GarrettSearch
-
as a measure to combat racial discrimination in voting, South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
U. S. 301 , 308 (1966), despite the facial constitutionality of the tests under Lassiter v. NorthamptonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial