God Sent Me led to the court case that involved which state?
1edf4dc767c2792519ebf0ffcefedb41
God Sent Me God Sent Me: A Textbook Case on Evolution vs. Creation is an autobiographical book by the lead plaintiff in the U.S. Federal Court case "Selman v. Cobb County". The book was self-published May 15, 2015 and details Selman's involvement in the court case resulting from the Cobb County School Board's 2002 decision to affix warning stickers against evolution on the schools' new science textbooks. The trial occurred in November 2004 and the Cobb County school board settled in Selman's favor in December 2006.
bc1335009ded1021cdda8590964bccb3
Selman v. Cobb County School District Selman v. Cobb County School District, 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006), was a United States court case in Cobb County, Georgia involving a sticker placed in public school biology textbooks. The sticker was a disclaimer stating that "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, concerning the origin of living things." The plaintiffs were parents of children in Cobb County schools who claimed the sticker violated both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the separation of church and state clause in the Georgia State Constitution because its purpose and effect was to cast doubt on the scientific consensus regarding evolutionary theory in order to promote religious beliefs in the schools.
bff773781c6c0e44ab4d3fbebfcc3773
William Sheffield (judge) William Sheffield is an American attorney and retired judge in the state of California. He was a general legal counsel for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) in the Asia Area of the church and was closely connected with the sending of Mormon missionaries to India by the church in the late-20th century. Sheffield has also served as a judge in the Superior Courts of California, Orange County.
c19a91b9e8ac6292beb8a5450dd8e200
Stump v. Sparkman Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978), is the leading United States Supreme Court decision on judicial immunity. It involved an Indiana judge who was sued by a young woman who had been sterilized without her knowledge as a minor in accordance with the judge's order. The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function. The case has been called one of the most controversial in recent Supreme Court history.
88912939d7e82c2673e589316691084b
Nordyke v. King Nordyke v. King, 563 F.3d 439 (9th Cir. 2009), reh'g. en banc, 644 F.3d 776 (9th Cir. 2011), is a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.
f3929da736436fbfdfe88c23f6218644
Bryan v. Kennett Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the treaty providing for the Louisiana Purchase, the United States would recognize property interests granted by the previous sovereign governments prior to the Purchase, even if the grant had been inchoate or incomplete. The case involved a disputed title to land in the U.S. state of Missouri, which had previously been under the control of Spain and France before being acquired by the United States. In the late 1700s, the government of Spain had made a possibly incomplete grant of the land to a U.S. citizen, Moses Austin. Spain then lost control of the land to France in 1800, who in turn sold it to the United States. A question later arose as to whether Austin had received sufficient property rights from Spain to allow him to mortgage his land in 1818, or whether necessary rights had somehow passed back to the United States government, making the mortgage invalid and voiding subsequent land transfers that occurred pursuant to Austin's defaulting on the mortgage. Under the Court's holding, the incomplete grant to Austin was valid and sufficient to permit the mortgage.
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
5776138f7cb1f39b5f90f5eb3d226d8f
God Told Me To (disambiguation) God Told Me To is a 1976 film.
dd2628d0db1ad8785c4fd1cc476e372f
Wilson v. Omaha Tribe Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in a land dispute, 25 U.S.C. § 194 applied only to individuals and not a state, that federal law governed the tribe's right to possession, but that state law was to be used in determining how that applied to the natural movement of a river's boundaries.
7274b5cab61d90f743a30c3175a6835a
Latta v. Otter Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–"Jackson v. Abercrombie", and "Sevcik v. Sandoval".
851495078e15303203be98755b7874af
McGowan v. Maryland McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular purpose.
c99b5ec44dc1bdf726fe1893875c243d
New South Wales v Commonwealth (1915) New South Wales v Commonwealth, commonly known as the Wheat case, or more recently as the Inter-State Commission case, is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court made in 1915 regarding judicial separation of power. It was also a leading case on the freedom of interstate trade and commerce that is guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution.
8ef5627cf8c100ebebb67d70d7ec717e
Van Orden v. Perry Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) , was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
f259df7e04f88eb767c797a621d62b5a
Aikens v. California Aikens v. California, 406 U.S. 813 (1972) , was a decision of the United States Supreme Court where a petitioner (in the U.S. Supreme Court, the plaintiff (Aikens) is called the "petitioner" and the defendant (the State of California) is called the "respondent") was appealing his conviction and death sentence. After oral argument had been made on the case, but before the court decided on it, the Supreme Court of California in "People v. Anderson", 6 Cal. 3d 628 (1972), declared the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution. This made his appeal unnecessary because the decision in "Anderson"
e09509815fe5b738ae65ba0410f9e38a
Same-sex marriage in the United States In the United States, same-sex marriage is legal in all states, Washington, D.C., as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa, but not on all Native American tribal lands, since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in "Obergefell v. Hodges" that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a 1972 precedent, "Baker v. Nelson". Just prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in 2015, same-sex marriage was legal in many but not all U.S. jurisdictions.
24cea91f8a89752bda9654018038aace
Niemotko v. Maryland Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268 (1951), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the city of Havre de Grace, Maryland had violated the free exercise of Niemotko's religion by not issuing a permit for him and his religious group (the Jehovah's Witnesses) to meet in a public park when other religious and civic groups had been given permits for holding their meetings there.
91b4e8c4f758f51f6443d7b2a6a17cd3
State v. Crenshaw State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wash. 2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983), is a criminal case interpreting the relationship of the insanity defense to a deific decree. The Supreme Court of Washington carved out the deific exception from the standard set forth in "People v. Schmidt" (1915), that a person can be found not guilty by reason of insanity even if they knew their act was morally wrong by the standards of society and wrong under the law, if their mental disorder was a delusion that God commanded their act. A mother insanely killed her child in the delusional belief that she was obeying God's command. It was found that "it would be unrealistic to hold her responsible for the crime, since her free will has been subsumed by her belief in the deific decree.
8aa05566fc42788463c70e819697374d
Lovell v. City of Griffin Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case. This case was remarkable in its discussion of the requirement of persons to seek government sanction to distribute religious material. In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled it was not constitutional for a city to require such sanction.
a0ca0e4d9980d4b1e9f17283b55f46a2
Temple Lot Case The Temple Lot Case (also known as the Temple Lot Suit and formally known as The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, complainant, v. the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri) was a United States legal case in the 1890s which addressed legal ownership of the Temple Lot, a significant parcel of land in the Latter Day Saint movement. In the case, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church) claimed legal title of the land and asked the court to order the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) to cease its occupation of the property. The RLDS Church won the case at trial, but the decision was reversed on appeal.
46c303dd1896ad64c8752d96a0bcc90d
Supreme Court Case Selections Act The Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–352 , 102 Stat. 662 , enacted  27, 1988 , codified at ) is an act of Congress that eliminated appeals as of right from state court decisions to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the Act took effect, in most cases, the only avenue by which a litigant could obtain review of most lower court decisions was through the writ of certiorari, which was granted at the discretion of the Supreme Court, rather than available to the litigant as a matter of right.
207aae2b833946eeba63a1c1064a63a5
Wright v. Houston Independent School District Wright v. Houston Independent School District was a 1972 American legal case brought by a parent of a student in the Houston Independent School District in Houston, Texas suing on behalf of her daughter and fellow students to prevent the district from teaching evolution as fact and without reference to alternative theories. The plaintiffs claimed evolutionary theory endorsed a secularist religious view, and argued the school's failure to incorporate the teaching of a particular religious alternative to evolutionary theory as derived from the Bible's creation account held that religious view up to ridicule and contempt. To allow evolution while avoiding creationism was unconstitutional, the suit claimed, because it advanced one particular sectarian view over another. The plaintiffs maintained that the school's evolutionary teaching constituted "the establishment of a sectarian, atheistic religion" and was an interference of their own rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Establishment clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The case is one of a series of legal battles over the teaching of evolution in American public schools, and the first to be initiated by opponents of such teaching.
0e8d43f7ab2b5599649cbae9aa585c39
Silverman v. Campbell Silverman v. Campbell was a South Carolina Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of a provision in the South Carolina Constitution requiring an oath to God for employment in the public sector.