When did Edgewood v Alamo Heights occur?
146835
U.S. Supreme Court\nSAN ANTONIO SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)\n411 U.S. 1\n\nSAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL. v. RODRIGUEZ ET AL.\nAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT\nOF TEXAS\nNo. 71-1332.\n\nArgued October 12, 1972\nDecided March 21, 1973\n\nThe financing of public elementary and secondary schools in Texas is a product of state and local participation. Almost half of the revenues are derived from a largely state-funded program designed to provide a basic minimum educational offering in every school. Each district supplements state aid through an ad valorem tax on property within its jurisdiction. Appellees brought this class action on behalf of schoolchildren said to be members of poor families who reside in school districts having a low property tax base, making the claim that the Texas system's reliance on local property taxation favors the more affluent and violates equal protection requirements because of substantial interdistrict disparities in per-pupil expenditures resulting primarily from differences in the value of assessable property among the districts. The District Court, finding that wealth is a "suspect" classification and that education is a "fundamental" right, concluded that the system could be upheld only upon a showing, which appellants failed to make, that there was a compelling state interest for the system. The court also concluded that appellants failed even to\n\nPage 411 U.S. 1, 2\n\ndemonstrate a reasonable or rational basis for the State's system. Held:\n\n      1. This is not a proper case in which to examine a State's laws under standards of strict judicial scrutiny, since that test is reserved for cases involving laws that operate to the disadvantage of suspect classes or interfere with the exercise of fundamental rights and liberties explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Pp. 18-44.\n\n      (a) The Texas system does not disadvantage any suspect class. It has not been shown to discriminate against any definable class of "poor" people or to occasion discriminations depending on the relative wealth of the families in any district. And, insofar as the financing system disadvantages those who, disregarding their individual income characteristics, reside in comparatively poor school districts, the resulting class cannot be said to be suspect. Pp. 18-28.\n\n      (b) Nor does the Texas school-financing system impermissibly interfere with the exercise of a "fundamental" right or liberty. Though education is one of the most important services performed by the State, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution. Even if some identifiable quantum of education is arguably entitled to constitutional protection to make meaningful the exercise of other constitutional rights, here there is no showing that the Texas system fails to provide the basic minimal skills necessary for that purpose. Pp. 29-39.\n\n      (c) Moreover, this is an inappropriate case in which to invoke strict scrutiny since it involves the most delicate and difficult questions of local taxation, fiscal planning, educational policy, and federalism, considerations counseling a more restrained form of review. Pp. 40-44.\n\n      2. The Texas system does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though concededly imperfect, the system bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. While assuring a basic education for every child in the State, it permits and encourages participation in and significant control of each district's schools at the local level. Pp. 44-53.\n\n337 F. Supp. 280, reversed.\n\nPOWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, BLACKMUN, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. [411 U.S. 1, 3]
7634
I heard this was a rumor from his trip to Mexico. Apparently, however, the suit is still in court and is pending a verdict. The real truths will come out on the stand. Link below is to a TheSmokingGun article describing the suit with filed documents.
129523
"When the Fort Worth and Denver City Railway began building across the Panhandle in 1887, a group of Colorado City merchants chose the site to establish stores. In April 1887 J. T. Berry arrived from Abilene to plat the new town. He chose a well-watered section of school land, located along the FW&DC right-of-way in Potter County, which contained a large playa known as Amarillo, or Wild Horse, Lake."
947570
Remember the Alamo!!!!!!!!!
668128
Found on the North Texas Commission website:\n\nThe "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex" was born 30 years ago. No, the region did not spring up like a mushroom overnight in 1972. Obviously, the cities of Dallas, Irving, Arlington and Fort Worth - and everything in between - already existed, but there was no sense of "region," and therefore, no word or concept that defined the then, 8-county area. This fact was part of the impetus for the creation of the North Texas Commission, a regional non-profit consortium of businesses, cities, chambers, economic development entities and higher educational institutions.\n\nAfter the North Texas Commission was created in 1971, one of it first challenges, in addition to marketing the proposed new "big" airport out in the middle of the North Texas prairie, was to "brand" the region that took definite shape when the DFW Airport became its central lynch pin. Suspecting an identity problem, NTC hired researchers to conduct a survey of 94 leading corporate executives outside the state who were asked to identify the "North Texas region." Surprisingly, only 38 percent correctly identified the term as the region including Dallas/Fort Worth. Another 28 percent thought the term referred to the Panhandle or other Texas cities, and 34 percent said they didn't know what it meant.\n\nNTC's original advertising committee hired a local ad agency to create a new name or brand for the region. They combined the words "metropolitan" and "complex" and came up with the term "Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex." NTC copyrighted the term in 1972, and the rest, as they say, is history. Thirty years later the term is in wide use by virtually every media source in the region and much of the rest of the world, is incorporated into the names of a myriad local businesses and is literally a household word. Today the term defines the now 12-county Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. The brand equity of "Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex" is a real and continuing asset to the region.
164842
http://www.azcorrections.gov/ISearch.htm \nIf the first link doesn't help, try there
364669
Austin, the state is Texas
1115659
feb 7 1988\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_Wanted\n\nvote best answer...
477455
Sorry...I couldn't find a current location with the information provided.\n\nHowever, I did find that Harry Leroy Price and Wilma Weaver had a daughter named Linda on 1/15/1947 in Harris County Texas.\n\nI hope this helps...
546632
What history book did you read?  Texas won their independence from Mexico and then asked the United States to annex them.
820603
Both of these particular cases involve religious conversions on the part of the plaintiffs.  McCorvey converted to Christianity in 1994 and was confirmed as a member in the Roman Catholic Church in 1998.\n\nThe details of the other case, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) escape me, but something similar happened.
880311
Yes, about 1.5 inches in the Brownsville, TX around Christmas of 2004.  Records were set in many other towns and cities near and along the TX/Mexico border for that winter event.
1180708
Mapp v. Ohio\n367 U.S. 643 (1961) \nDocket Number: 236\nAbstract\n\n\n \nArgued:\n March 29, 1961\n \nDecided:\n June 19, 1961\n \n  \nSubjects: Criminal Procedure: Search and Seizure\n\n \n \nFacts of the Case \nDolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. \n \n \nQuestion Presented \nWere the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) \n \n \nConclusion \nThe Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court." Mapp had been convicted on the basis of illegally obtained evidence. This was an historic -- and controversial -- decision. It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule.
1097900
Ther is no statute of limitations in Texas anymore for any crime.They amended that statute about 10 years ago. Sorry
500994
University of Texas-El Paso, 1966\n\nhttp://ia.utep.edu/Default.aspx?alias=ia.utep.edu/gloryroad
107068
If it was it was stolen by Texans.  Texas won it's independence in 1836 and was the Texas Republic until 1845 when it joined the Union.  The Mexican-American War was not until after that.  Lincoln's single term in the U.S. Congress was from 1847-1849.  If it can be said that we stole any lands from Mexico as a result of the settlement of a war, could it not be said that Mexico had itself stolen these lands from Spain?  Then of course we all know who had them before that and had it stole from them as well.  Are we now trying to rewrite history books to make them politically correct without stepping on anyone's toes?
132851
Wasn't that the next mexican conquest after the Alamo?  The battle cry "Remember the Alamo" is incomplete. It is "Remember the Alamo, remember Goliad" I recall the mexican army had captured 400 or so texians and executed them there. Outnumbered, they surrendered expecting to be treated as prisoners.