Third Hunter V Erickson - Judgment Search Results
Schuette Vs. Bamn
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-22-2014
ballot box, not the courts, as the normal instrument for resolving debates about the merits of these programs. Third, Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , and Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 458 U. S. 457 ,
Hunter Vs. Erickson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-20-1969
Hunter v. Erickson - 393 U.S. 385 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) Hunter v. Erickson
Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. Vs. Fcc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-1996
of legal protections against private acts, regardless of whether the private acts are attributable to the State. Cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , 389-390 (1969) (state action under the Fourteenth Amendment). The plurality balks at taking … assigned the channels devoted to access). See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 635-637. Third, the problem § lO(a) addresses is analogous to the "indecent" radio broadcasts at issue in FCC v. Pacifica
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Romer Vs. Evans
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-20-1996
393 U. S. 23 (1968), and on our precedents involving discriminatory restructuring of governmental decisionmaking, see, e. g., Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 (1969); Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369 (1967); Washington v. Seattle School Dist.
Cuyahoga Falls Vs. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-25-2003
473 U. S. 432 , 448 (1985); Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., supra, at 268; and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , 392 (1969)). Because respondents claim injury from the referendum petitioning process and not
City of Eastlake Vs. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-21-1976
can reserve to themselves power to deal directly with matters which might otherwise be assigned to the legislature. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , 393 U. S. 392 (1969). [ Footnote 5 ] The reservation of such … the limits of the City for two consecutive times, with at least two weeks between notices and a third notice one week prior to the election. Should the land use request not be affirmed by a 55%
Dayton Bd. of Educ. Vs. Brinkman
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-1977
of whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took. Cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 . . . (1969); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 . . .
Lockport Vs. Citizens for Community Action
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-1977
Clause, there being no discrimination against an identifiable class. Gordon v. Lance, 403 U. S. 1 . Cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 . [ Footnote 14 ] See generally N.Y.Mun.Home Rule Law (McKinney 1969 and Supp.
United States Vs. Board of Comm'rs of Sheffield
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-06-1978
but also to those political units that may exercise control over critical aspects of the voting process. Cf. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 (1969); Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953). It is, of course, the … it does not adequately assess the reason for the inclusion of the § 14(c)(2) definition of "political subdivision." Third, the Court has already recognized that § 5 was not intended to provide a remedy for every wrong
Washington Vs. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-30-1982
the initiative unconstitutional on the ground, inter alia, that it established an impermissible racial classification in violation of Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , and Lee v. Nyquist, 318 F.Supp. 710 (WDNY), summarily aff'd, 402 U.S. 935,
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free