The Declaration of Independence was a letter to the king about the reasons the colonies were declaring themselves free from the crown. Slavery wasn't an issue in this case.
The Rule of Four means four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case in order for it to be accepted on appeal. If four or more justices think the case is worth the Court's time, then the Supreme Court will issue a writ of certiorari to the lower court ordering them to send the case files to the Supreme Court, and the case will be placed on the docket.
The Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court weakened the case for those Americans that believed slavery had to be abolished. It strengthened the belief, held mostly in the South, that slavery was Constitutional. The South was elated, and Northerners who opposed slavery were shocked.
The US Supreme Court decision on the Dred Scott case resulted in the court making it clear that Scott could not be a free man and denied his case to be free of his slavery status. The Court declared that Scott was not a US citizen, and thus could not sue for his freedom.
this was a case in the supreme court in 1921. to understand the issue I posted in the related links box below a link containing the information.
Gibbons v. Ogden -- interstate commerce
No, states are not obligated to follow other states legal decisions; however, the decisions may carry persuasive weight with the court, assuming (for example) the Iowa Supreme Court ruling doesn't violate the Illinois state constitution or statutes.If Iowa is is the only other state court system that has addressed this PARTICULAR issue then the decision of Iowa's Supreme Court can be used as "precedent" for the Illinois court to follow. If there are other states that have addressed this PARTICULAR issue and they have either agreed with, or disagreed with, the Iowa court's findings, those decisions should be also be taken into account when the Illinois court considers the issue.
The issue
That depends on the court system, the type of case, the parties, the pretrial preparation, discovery, the issue, the parties and the attorneys.That depends on the court system, the type of case, the parties, the pretrial preparation, discovery, the issue, the parties and the attorneys.That depends on the court system, the type of case, the parties, the pretrial preparation, discovery, the issue, the parties and the attorneys.That depends on the court system, the type of case, the parties, the pretrial preparation, discovery, the issue, the parties and the attorneys.
The Dread Scott case was the Supreme Court case the stated that Congress did not have the right to ban slavery in states and that blacks were not citizens.
the English court
Only the court, or an authorized court official, has the pwoer to issue and/or serve subpoenas. As a party to a case you can request that a subpoena be issued, but if it is in reference to the case at issue, it is HIGHLY unlikely the court will do so.
The Abolitionists could claim that he was a special case. There would have been no big divisive issue.
The Declaration of Independence was a letter to the king about the reasons the colonies were declaring themselves free from the crown. Slavery wasn't an issue in this case.
the dred Scott case of 1857 is one of them..
The Dred Scott case did not settle the slavery issue - it unsettled it. The South interpreted it as a licence to travel in the North with their slaves, and possibly re-introduce slavery into free soil. The North was thrown into confusion at the Supreme Court's suggestion that there was no such thing as free soil, because slavery was protected by the Constitution. It caused furious disputes, including the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which drew slavery to the attention of people not previously concerned with it.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris.