what supreme court juges were involved with the hammer vs deganhart case?
98389
The decision in Hammer v. Degenhart was rendered in 1918.  The following were the members of the Supreme in that year.\n\nChief Justice :\nEdward Douglass White\n\nAssociate Justices:\nJoseph McKenna\nOliver Wendell Holmes\nWilliam Rufus Day\nWillis Van Devanter\nMahlon Pitney\nJames Clark McReynolds\nLouis Dembitz Brandeis\nJohn Hessin Clarke
567773
In Chisholm v. Georgia (1792), the Supreme Court held that it had the right to hear cases of individual citizens against states, in particular a state in which they do not reside. The states found that they did not particularly like this situation, and thus they passed the 11th amendment, which essentially gives the several states sovreign immunity from being made a party to a suit.
25724
I think it's better for you to stick with the original question.  Many people in many countries, like China or Sudan, suffer real religious persecution, for instance, and do not have access to our legal system.  The United States simply protected individual liberties better than any country in the world.\n\nThat said, Michael Newdow's rights have not been violated.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated "standing" requirements for plaintiffs, which means that the plaintiff has a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution, and the federal court system is authorized to hear that "case or controversy."\n\nSix principles have been repeatedly articulated by the Court in cases like Valley Forge. Three are constitutional: the plaintiff must have and injury in fact (actual or threatened, and imminent); the harm caused must be fairly traceable to the conduct; and a favorable court decision will lead to redress.  Three are prudential: no third-party standing is permitted on concern of the vigor of the litigations; no generalized grievances will be heard, since equal harm is dispersed among population; and the harm must occur within the "zone of interests" of the plaintiff.\n\nThe Lujan case suggested that the "generalized grievances" standard is more of a constitutional than prudential claim, and it appears that Newdow's claim falls under that prong of the test.  Nevertheless, under contemporary standing doctrine, Newdow's does not have a "concrete and particularized injury," but only a "general grievance" as an offended bystander.
721913
Stephen G. Breyer\nRuth Bader Ginsburg\nClarence Thomas\nDavid H. Souter\nAnthony Kennedy\nWilliam H. Rhenquist\nAntonin Scalia\nSandra Day O'Connor\nJohn Paul Stevens
553916
1.  Trail of Tears\n\n2.  Jim Crowe Laws\n\n3.  Plessy v. Ferguson
228360
Webster was the attorney general of Missouri\n\nMissouri passed a law stating in its preamble that life begins at conception.  The Supreme Court said that this preamble was not a statute but an expression of the legislature's opinion and therefor had no pertinence to the case.\n\nMissouri chose only to appeal to the Supreme Court the Court of Appeals' invalidation of the public funding provision.  \n\nWebster argued that there was no requirement that a state spend any of its public funds on or to support abortions.  The Supreme Court agreed with this argument.\n\nWebster also argued that physicians were required to perform tests to determine if a fetus was viable and the court agreed that viability of the fetus rather than a bright line "second trimester vs. third trimester test" was a line which could properly be drawn by a state consistent with the Constitution.\n\nThe opinion of the Supreme Court was highly divided and given the change in the Court's personnel cannot be expected to be the same should similar issues come before the Court in the future.\n\nThe Court noted that Roe v Wade was entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis but Justice Rehnquist seemed to indicate that he did not believe that Roe v Wade was by any means engraved in stone as precedent.
721096
There is a group here in NH trying to get Souter to change his mind. They are trying to get the town of Weare, NH to take Souter's home in town by eminent domain to build the 'Lost Liberty Inn'. They lost in the March 2006 election but the fight is not over yet.\n\nAs far as who is responsible:\nJustice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. \n\nJustice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, saying "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." She called it a "reverse Robin Hood", steal from the poor to give to the rich.\n\nEminent domain is a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That means that, if justly compensated, private property can be taken for "public use". The case that set this all off was Kelo v. City of New London (125 S. Ct. 2655), where the city of New London, CT condemmed a group of homes and took them by eminent domain so they could sell the property to developers. The plan was to build a conference center, small state park, a resort hotel, 80–100 new residences, and various research, office, and retail space. While the conference center and state park fall under the "public use" clause, the rest does not.\n\nThe issue is coming up for a vote again in Weare, NH in November. I hope to stay at the "Lost Liberty Inn" shortly thereafter, even though it's only abot 30 miles from where I live.
339775
This is a listing of briefs for cases currently on the Docket.  The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe RR case is an employment discrimination case.  I've also posted a link to the latest slip opinions.\n\nhttp://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/home.html\nhttp://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
873579
I am not sure, but you should try looking on Oyez to find out about more supreme court cases.
440826
In a law library. The cite is 7 N.J.Super. 81. A reference librarian should be able to help you find a reporter that includes the case.
294739
Criminal court is where OJ gets off the hook. Civil court is where they side-stepped double jeopardy and sued him for violating Nichol's rights, by killing her.
178935
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 623. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined, post, p. 628.
660054
Griswold vs. Connecticut is one:
812781
everyone above told you the summary, here is the actual charges that were filed in the district court...\n\nhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1017061snipes1.html
250216
is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court as a constitutional power. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare void a statute which it considered repugnant to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall presided over the case, and used the case to legally establish the right of the judiciary—and in particular, the Supreme Court— to overrule the actions of coequal branches of government and thus laid the basis for the current power of the Supreme Court.
192614
He ruled in favor of Marbury.  This is a landmark case because it was the beginning of the practice known as judicial review-  \nthe supreme court takes on the responsibility of determining the constitutionality of goverment actions.
904812
Uh Lawyer Here--Do your own homework, start by reading the case, then look for comentary on it.  Also, you only got 2 days to do this?  Sounds like you left it to the last minute.  The case has to do with the remoteness of damages in contract and is related to the much earlier case of Hadley v. Baxendale.  \n\nA simple Google search has pulled up a scholarly article on this case--why is it that you couldn't do the same? Of course, I don't have access to the full article....