Citation network
Haywood Vs. Drown
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 26, 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
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Syllabus October Term, 2008 Haywood V. DrownSearch
-
filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined as to Part III. Haywood v. DrownSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Haywood V. DrownSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-10374 Keith Haywood, Petitioner V. CurtisSearch
-
to entertain the federal cause of action. 9 N. Y. 3d 481, 487, 881 N. E. 2d 180, 183, 184 (2007) (quoting Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
and may not seek punitive damages or injunctive relief, Sharapata v. TownSearch
-
see Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. BombolisSearch
-
for the vindication of federal rights violated by state or local officials acting under color of state law. See Patsy v. BoardSearch
-
this Court has found a valid excuse, the state rule at issue treated state and federal claims equally. In Douglas v. NewSearch
-
jurisdiction over state and federal claims alike when neither party was a resident of the State. Later, in Herb v. PitcairnSearch
-
way that discriminated against the federal claim. 324 U. S., at 123. In a third case, Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. MayfieldSearch
-
as the policy was enforced impartially. Id. , at 4. And our most recent decision finding a valid excuse, Johnson v. FankellSearch
-
Pollicina v. MisericordiaSearch
-
see also Artega v. StateSearch
-
See Will v. MichiganSearch
-
App. 85. In Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
Owen v. IndependenceSearch
-
in deciding whether a state procedural rule is neutral, see Felder v. CaseySearch
-
suit. See Testa v. KattSearch
-
see also Brief for National Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae in Howlett v. RoseSearch
-
see also Hughes v. FetterSearch
-
Thomas, J., Dissenting Haywood V. DrownSearch
-
see also Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. HendersonSearch
-
States to consider federal claims in the text of Article III, confirm this understanding. See U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. ThorntonSearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
see also Stearns v. UnitedSearch
-
Mitchell v. GreatSearch
-
see also Gregory v. AshcroftSearch
-
Swift & Co. v. WickhamSearch
-
See R. Berger, Congress v. TheSearch
-
would have rendered the separate jurisdictional component of the New Jersey Plan mere surplusage. See Marbury v. MadisonSearch
-
see also Kelo v. NewSearch
-
a condition precedent to reaching the merits of a legal dispute. See Steel Co. v. CitizensSearch
-
matter jurisdiction over a claim and the merits of that claim can at times prove difficult to draw, see Arbaugh v. Y &Search
-
see also Bell v. HoodSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial