Citation network
Horne Vs. Flores
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 25, 2009
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
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Horne V. FloresSearch
-
Speaker of Arizona House of Representatives et al. v. FloresSearch
-
et al., also on certiorari to the same court. Horne v. FloresSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Horne V. FloresSearch
-
Castaneda v. PickardSearch
-
Flores v. ArizonaSearch
-
Summers v. EarthSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
slip op., at 4) (quoting Warth v. SeldinSearch
-
see also United States v. SweeneySearch
-
See, e.g. , Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Such litigation commonly involves areas of core state responsibility, such as public education. See Missouri v. JenkinsSearch
-
U. S. 431 , 441 (2004). See also Northwest Environment Advocates v. EPASearch
-
Ragsdale v. TurnockSearch
-
See Railway Employees v. WrightSearch
-
Hawaii v. OfficeSearch
-
so (1) unequivocally and (2) pursuant to certain valid grants of constitutional authority. See, e.g. , Kimel v. FloridaSearch
-
to the injury that Congress intended to address. See City of Boerne v. FloresSearch
-
sovereign immunity. See Los Angeles Branch NAACP v. LosSearch
-
see also Flores v. ArizonaSearch
-
our criticism is that the Court of Appeals did not engage in the changed-circumstances inquiry prescribed by Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
s case file). Horne v. FloresSearch
-
Breyer, J., Dissenting Horne V. FloresSearch
-
Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
p. 6 (1972). 2 In 1981, in Castaneda v. PickardSearch
-
s approach. See, e.g. , Gomez v. IllinoisSearch
-
United States v. TexasSearch
-
Valeria G. v. WilsonSearch
-
see also Railway Employees v. WrightSearch
-
a court passing on a Rule 60(b)(5) motion must make. To give content to this standard, the Court refers to Milliken v. BradleySearch
-
ante , at 13, and to Frew v. HawkinsSearch
-
see also Savage v. UnitedSearch
-
McCoy v. MassachusettsSearch
-
it would be difficult to operate an adversary system of justice without applying such a principle. See Duignan v. UnitedSearch
-
cf. Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. DowellSearch
-
s issuance. Browder v. DirectorSearch
-
United States v. SwiftSearch
-
A reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for that of the district court. See National Hockey League v. MetropolitanSearch
-
see also Calderon v. ThompsonSearch
-
Cf. Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRBSearch
-
not involve a comprehensive judicial decree that governs the running of a major institution. See, e.g. , Hutto v. FinneySearch
-
It does not involve a highly detailed set of orders. See, e.g. , Ramos v. LammSearch
-
United States v. SweeneySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial