• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
30 results

James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al.

Docket 20-361, Supreme Court of the United States (Sept. 17, 2020)
Petitioner James Courtney, et al.
Respondent David Danner, et al.
Other Americans for Prosperity Foundation
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Reply of petitioners James Courtney et - Certificate of Word Count

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Reply of petitioners James Courtney et, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Dec. 18, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners James Courtney et - Main Document

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Reply of petitioners James Courtney et, Main Document (U.S. Dec. 18, 2020)
But that simply reflects the fact that the Ninth Circuit, in a prior published opinion, had already held that there is a “bar on Privileges or Immunities claims against the power of the State governments over the rights of [their] own citizens.” Merrifield, 547 F.3d at 983 (alteration in original) (in- ternal quotation marks omitted).
In Loving and Harrell, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits held that the public has a right to use the nav- igable waters of the United States for purposes other than interstate or foreign commerce—e.g., recreational and intrastate economic pursuits.
The WUTC ignores the vital importance of that right to free blacks and, later, the freedmen, who found great economic opportunity captaining and crewing bateaux, scows, canoes, periaugers, and even steamers on the nation’s navigable waters.
The WUTC ignores the myriad laws enacted by state, county, and municipal governments throughout the South to systematically deprive free blacks and the freedmen from earning a living on the navigable waters.
And the WUTC ignores the text, history, and precedent interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which make clear that its fram- ers and ratifiers understood it to protect the freed- men—and all Americans—against abridgment of the right to use the navigable waters by any State, includ- ing their own.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners James Courtney et

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Reply of petitioners James Courtney et (U.S. Dec. 18, 2020)
But that simply reflects the fact that the Ninth Circuit, in a prior published opinion, had already held that there is a “bar on Privileges or Immunities claims against the power of the State governments over the rights of [their] own citizens.” Merrifield, 547 F.3d at 983 (alteration in original) (in- ternal quotation marks omitted).
In Loving and Harrell, the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits held that the public has a right to use the nav- igable waters of the United States for purposes other than interstate or foreign commerce—e.g., recreational and intrastate economic pursuits.
The WUTC ignores the vital importance of that right to free blacks and, later, the freedmen, who found great economic opportunity captaining and crewing bateaux, scows, canoes, periaugers, and even steamers on the nation’s navigable waters.
The WUTC ignores the myriad laws enacted by state, county, and municipal governments throughout the South to systematically deprive free blacks and the freedmen from earning a living on the navigable waters.
And the WUTC ignores the text, history, and precedent interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which make clear that its fram- ers and ratifiers understood it to protect the freed- men—and all Americans—against abridgment of the right to use the navigable waters by any State, includ- ing their own.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Reply of petitioners James Courtney et - Proof of Service

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Reply of petitioners James Courtney et, Proof of Service (U.S. Dec. 18, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondents Washington - Certificate of Word Count

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Brief of respondents Washington, Certificate of Word Count (U.S. Dec. 4, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondents Washington - Main Document

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Brief of respondents Washington, Main Document (U.S. Dec. 4, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brief of respondents Washington

Document James Courtney, et al., Petitioners v. David Danner, et al., 20-361, Brief of respondents Washington (U.S. Dec. 4, 2020)

cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 >>