Search for: "Land v. Marshall" Results 41 - 60 of 556
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2019, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
Schwartz, The Spirit of the Constitution: John Marshall and the 200-Year Odyssey of McCulloch v. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 8:15 am by Jennifer Davis
” He also cited the earlier Court ruling in a similar case, Fletcher v. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 1:18 pm by John McFarland
” In Dorchester, Torch was the owner of a 25% interest in an oil and gas lease covering a section of land in Midland County. [read post]
28 Dec 2006, 9:09 am
Erin Ryan (College of William and Mary - Marshall-Wythe School of Law) has posted Zoning, Taking, and Dealing: The Problems and Promise of Bargaining in Land Use Planning Conflicts (Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. 7, p. 337, 2002) on SSRN. [read post]
23 May 2017, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
The truth is that Indian nations have both sovereignty and property rights over their lands and they do not have a mere license or "permission from the whites to occupy" (as the Supreme Court suggested in the 1955 case of Tee-Hit-Ton v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:06 am by J. Gordon Hylton
Marshall did this most famously with his opinion in Marbury v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 10:02 pm by Jeff Gamso
When the Supreme Court refused Georgia's attempt to seize Cherokee lands (Wooster v. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 5:00 am by Josh Blackman
[Chief Justice Marshall wrote pseudonymous editorials after McCulloch v. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 1:34 am by J
Marshall Dixon and others v Wellington Close Management Ltd [2012] UKUT 95 (LC) is, so far as I can tell, the first Lands Tribunal/Upper Tribunal case on s.37, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. [read post]
31 Mar 2012, 1:34 am by J
Marshall Dixon and others v Wellington Close Management Ltd [2012] UKUT 95 (LC) is, so far as I can tell, the first Lands Tribunal/Upper Tribunal case on s.37, Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 1:50 pm by Barry Barnett
Smith would get half of the elder Marshall's fortune landed at length in a bankruptcy court, in which Ms. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 12:44 pm by Lawrence Solum
Congress over Indian tribes and the uncompensated takings of Indian title lands, the Marshall Court decision actually is better interpreted to recognize that Indian tribes had fee simple absolute to their ancestral lands. [read post]
23 Nov 2023, 6:30 am by ernst
But in Castro-Huerta, the Court took precisely the kind of arguments about state power that Chief Justice Marshall rejected in Worcester and turned them into the law of the land—without any recognition of the arguments’ Indian Removal–era origins.This Article corrects the Court’s oversight. [read post]