Texas v. White and United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. were argued in what court?
6785cfce5d199c71d396500da6cb736a
Texas v. White Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War. The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.
99244d2e32539558e42ab7d98bdd0300
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), was a United States Supreme Court case involving principles of both governmental regulation of business and the supremacy of the executive branch of the federal government to conduct foreign affairs. The Supreme Court concluded not only that foreign affairs power was vested in the national government as a whole but also that the President of the United States had "plenary" powers in the foreign affairs field that were not dependent upon congressional delegation.
d61b5f6d4158812158a0a74128267b03
Runyon v. McCrary Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court, which held that federal law prohibited private schools from discriminating on the basis of race. Dissenting Justice Byron White argued that the legislative history of  /1981 § 1981  (popularly known as the "Ku Klux Klan Act") indicated that the Act was not designed to prohibit private racial discrimination, but only state-sponsored racial discrimination (as had been held in the "Civil Rights Cases" of 1883).
5b2bcf8507b6c3e25e5fda87fb282878
Kidd v. Pearson Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1 (1888), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a distinction between manufacturing and commerce meant that an Iowa law that prohibited the manufacture of alcohol (in this case for sale out-of-state) was constitutional as it did not conflict with the power of the US Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
c890e655a111f3cbfd25242bda502742
United States v. Rybar United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
ac6fb4a94e520244fa0dba98683d95c9
Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws.
ca44025bcffa5686a89cbc11010e3c32
United States v. Miller United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). "Miller" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
e5698d101fe2612a2ea425019c5b4512
Williams v. Lee Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Arizona does not have jurisdiction to try a civil case between a non-Indian doing business on a reservation with tribal members who reside on the reservation, the proper forum for such cases being the tribal court.
e309a8945bc8cb963fcc8838aad8f1a4
Washington v. Davis Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially-discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially-discriminatory purpose are valid, under the US Constitution.
8b8f275808c0e615b34baa9ade7cb9c2
Phillips v. AWH Corp. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), was a case decided by the Federal Circuit that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
848a88abbbc26554af425654b538e5e9
Younger v. Harris Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.
90daeabbebd8c31fb03e39500d117790
Pace v. Alabama Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute was constitutional. This ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1964 in "McLaughlin v. Florida" and in 1967 in "Loving v. Virginia". "Pace v. Alabama" is possibly the first recorded interracial sex court case in America.
955450ca78ba6b9f3c3bc971de5961c6
United States v. Lopez United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) was the second United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress' power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which banned possession of handguns near schools, was unconstitutional because it did not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. After the "Lopez" decision, the act was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce.
a60c5aa0e92a425ec644d5ef204c01b6
United States v. United States Gypsum Co. United States v. United States Gypsum Co. was a patent–antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court decided, first, in 1948, that a patent licensing program that fixed prices of many licensees and regimented an entire industry violated the antitrust laws, and then, decided in 1950, after a remand, that appropriate relief in such cases did not extend so far as to permit licensees enjoying a compulsory, reasonable–royalty license to challenge the validity of the licensed patents. The Court also ruled, in "obiter dicta", that the United States had standing to challenge the validity of patents when a patentee relied on the patents to justify its fixing prices. It held in this case, however, that the defendants violated the antitrust laws irrespective of whether the patents were valid, which made the validity issue irrelevant.
d1b57f358d6bc22cbcc35e12dde607ec
United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd., 410 U.S. 52 (1973), is a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that (1) when a patent is directly involved in an antitrust violation, the Government may challenge the validity of the patent; and (2) ordinarily, in patent-antitrust cases, “[m]andatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies.”
dc9494a5850bd314ff1fa866f2b8b25f
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
46b845df7f94292038efcbef2d60a95c
Ware &amp; Leland v. Mobile County Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce. The Court also held that a state tax on persons engaged in buying and selling cotton for future delivery was not a regulation of interstate commerce, and that the imposition of the tax was not beyond the power of the state.
e70fd780a6396063ae46bfb5514674ca
United States v. Ortiz United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.
d4b3644b1de8eb393129cf4e86ce6343
Champion v. Ames Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903) , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that trafficking lottery tickets constituted interstate commerce that could be regulated by the U.S. Congress under the Commerce Clause.
6eb9d5ac25c7b96bc1cdee121c1e0355
James v. Dravo Contracting Co. James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134 (1937) , is a 5-to-4 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States that a state's corporate income tax did not violate the Supremacy Clause (Article Six, Clause 2) of the United States Constitution by taxing the United States federal government.
47b3d7fbde0a3a79f64df74c8742956b
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. In "Celotex", the Court held that a party moving for summary judgment need only show that the opposing party lacks evidence sufficient to support its case.