Search for: "In Re Burrus"
Results 21 - 37
of 37
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2016, 1:20 pm
And I have a second question: What makes you think that you’re not being scammed? [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 10:20 pm
Look how quickly she cabins unhelpful precedent: It is true that Congress lacks a general power over domestic relations, In re Burrus (1890), and, as a result, responsibility for regulating marriage and child custody remains primarily with the States, Sosna v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 7:37 pm
#CatoSOTU — Trevor Burrus (@TCBurrus) January 21, 2015 At @overlawyered I just RT'd tweet re: Prez's lame "pay gap" talk. [read post]
10 Jan 2015, 4:46 am
That notion dates all the way back to a Supreme Court decision in 1890 in the case of In re Burrus. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 2:41 pm
” Since the Supreme Court’s 1890 decision in In re Burrus, it has been understood that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over at least some issues of “domestic relations” law. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 9:30 am
We’re in a constitutional quagmire with respect to the treaty power that can only be escaped by limiting or overturning Missouri v. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 1:48 pm
The Bulletin describes these cases, culminating with In re D.L.D, 203 N.C. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 5:01 am
But this doesn’t mean that we’re including only violent crimes. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 12:35 pm
In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 (1969), G.S. 7B-2412. [read post]
21 Aug 2006, 2:30 am
Apparently, they're doing the same thing with Benjamin Franklin Federal. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 7:31 am
Richard Re covered the decision for this blog, with commentary from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View and Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog. [read post]
17 Jan 2015, 9:55 am
The domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction derives from the Constitution’s and federal statutes’ limiting the judicial power to cases in law and equity Reflecting our federal structure, in which the states remain sovereign in the spheres not delegated to the federal government, the Supreme Court’s 1890 In re Burrus decision recognized a “domestic-relations” exception to federal jurisdiction: “The whole subject of the domestic… [read post]
22 Feb 2022, 10:49 am
This view is somewhat at odds with the holding by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions and that a finding of delinquency is not synonymous with a conviction, see In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517 (1969), and Juvenile Code provisions specifying that an adjudication of delinquency is not a criminal conviction, see G.S. 7B-2412. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 11:41 am
” – In re Burrus (1890) “[W]hile rare instances arise in which it is necessary to answer a substantial federal question that transcends or exists apart from the family law issue, in general it is appropriate for the federal courts to leave delicate issues of domestic relations to the state courts. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 9:00 pm
S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 1:38 pm
Every oral argument and judicial ruling, going back over a year now, prompts a new round of press releases and re-jiggering of briefs for the next case. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 3:50 am
There is no need to rush through a significant re-write of current U.S. cross-border rules. [read post]
