What was important important about the Marbury v. Madison case?
146764
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)[1], is a landmark case in United States law, the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the U.S. 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 Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury, legally established 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.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
658830
From the syllabus of the case, these were the major issues:\n 1. Child Custody. Joint custody is not favored by the courts of this state and will be reserved for only the rarest of cases.\n2. Modification of Decree: Child Support. A significant increase in the appellant's income, along with the increased ages of the children and the inability of the appellee to afford to pay the children's bills on the current support payment, meets the requirement of a material change in circumstances and supports the trial court's decision to modify child support payments.\n\nThe appellant (the one trying for joint custody) tried citing Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(3) for support. That section:\n\n42-364(3)\nDissolution   or   legal   separation;  decree;  parenting  plan; children;  custody  determination;  rights  of   parents;   child support;   termination   of   parental   rights;  court;  duties; modification proceedings.\n(3) In determining custody arrangements and the time to\nbe spent with each parent, the court shall not give preference to either  parent  based on the sex of the parent and no presumption shall exist that either parent is more fit or suitable  than  the other.\n(http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/corpus/chapall/chap42.html)
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....
553496
None! The Constitution has no provisions on the matter. As to previous poster your refering to the rule for Senators & President. Not the Justices....
649231
About facts on the Supreme Court,check\n\nhttp://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0875894.html\n\nhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,622,00.html\n\nhttp://www.constitutionfacts.com/Supreme_ct/Supreme_ct.htm
268555
In the Gideon decision, the court held the 6th amendment, applicable to the states throught the 14th amendment (very important tenet), required states to provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants. It's technically an equal protection issue.
655640
VII. John Marshall and Judicial Nationalism \n    A. Marshall most important chief justice in U.S. history (1801-1835) \n        1. Significantly strengthened the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) and other \n            cases. \n        2. His decisions greatly increased power of the federal government over the states. \n            a. Strengthened the union and helped create a stable, nationally uniform environment for \n                business. \n            b. Checked excesses of the popularly elected state legislatures. \n            c. Ironically, his decisions at times hampered democracy at a time when America was \n                become much more democratic during the Jacksonian era.
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
293807
Go Mason!!!!\n\nGeorge Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights.\nJames Madison used it, with George's permission, to write the US's Bill of Rights.\n\nHe can't stand up right now because, like all of us here on Campus, we're still too drunk from that game against UConn!!!
291190
ANYTHING relevent to the case, or the plantiffs credibility and testimony.  You really would have to be more specific.
111063
Marbury lost and the government won in the personage of Madison.\n\nIn 1804 a judicial decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Marbury v. Madison. The case was started because President Jefferson did not like one of the appointments made by his predecessor in the Presidency, John Adams. The appointment, made in the last few hours of Adams' administration in 1801, elevated a man named William Marbury to the position of justice of the peace. Jefferson asked his Secretary of State, James Madison, to dismiss Marbury, and Marbury sued the government in the person of Madison so that he might be reinstated in his job. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed Marbury's suit, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction in the case. More importantly, the Supreme Court declared that a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. This was the first time that the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress invalid, which opened a new role for the court, eventually gaining for it an important place as the third, co-equal branch of government, along with the Congress and the Executive.
124736
Marbury V. Madison  gave the Supreme Court the "right" for Constitutional review
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
473349
Here you go:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman\n\nLooks like an issue of separation of Church and State.
1092291
Determined by supreme court case.
1097400
a).\n\nBut it's "case AND controversy."
835633
The Warren Court (1953–1969) made several rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a considerable change in the scope of substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education) in public (ie, tax supported) schooling, that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot sponsor or impose official prayer on students (Engel v. Vitale) nor mandatory Bible readings either (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona), found that the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe) required equal protection of the laws to all, and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).\n\nThe Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was included in the Constitutionally protected right to privacy (Roe v. Wade), made several somewhat contradictory rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violated the cruel and unusual prohibition in the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution (Furman v. Georgia), but later held that it was not unconstitutional after all if done in particular ways (Gregg v. Georgia).