| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| | the facts for purposes of a motion for leave to file are the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint. See | | the facts for purposes of a motion for leave to file are the well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint. See |
| | ''Hernandez v. Mesa'', 582 U.S. 548, 550 (2017).<ref>https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Missouri-v.-NY.pdf</ref>}} | | ''Hernandez v. Mesa'', 582 U.S. 548, 550 (2017).<ref>https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Missouri-v.-NY.pdf</ref>}} |
| | + | |
| | + | This lawsuit depends on the constitutional right to hear. |
| | + | == Cases cited == |
| | + | *Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, |
| | + | 458 U.S. 592 (1982) |
| | + | *Biden v. Nebraska, |
| | + | 143 S. Ct. 2355 (2023) |
| | + | *Burroughs v. United States, |
| | + | 290 U.S. 534 (1934) |
| | + | *California Democratic Party v. Jones, |
| | + | 530 U.S. 567 (2000) |
| | + | *Chiafalo v. Washington, |
| | + | 591 U.S. 578 (2020) |
| | + | *Cohens v. Virginia, |
| | + | 6 Wheat. 264 (1821) |
| | + | *Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., |
| | + | 553 U.S. 181 (2008) |
| | + | *DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, |
| | + | 547 U.S. 332 (2006) |
| | + | *Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., |
| | + | 438 U.S. 59 (1978) |
| | + | *Fed. Election Comm’n. v. Akins, |
| | + | 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (cited repeatedly) |
| | + | *Fed. Election Comm’n v. Cruz, |
| | + | 596 U.S. 289 (2022) |
| | + | *Gill v. Whitford, |
| | + | 585 U.S. 48 (2018) |
| | + | *Gonzalez v. Trevino, |
| | + | 602 U.S. ___ (2024) |
| | + | *Hernandez v. Mesa, |
| | + | 582 U.S. 548 (2017) |
| | + | *Kansas v. Colorado, |
| | + | 185 U.S. 125 (1902) |
| | + | *Maryland v. Louisiana, |
| | + | 451 U.S. 725 (1981) (cited twice) |
| | + | *Mississippi v. Louisiana, |
| | + | 506 U.S. 73 (1992) (cited three times) |
| | + | *Murthy v. Missouri, |
| | + | 603 U.S. ___ (2024) |
| | + | *Nebraska v. Colorado, |
| | + | 136 S. Ct. 1034 (2016) (cited twice) |
| | + | *Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, |
| | + | 426 U.S. 660 (1976) (cited twice) |
| | + | *Purcell v. Gonzalez, |
| | + | 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (cited twice) |
| | + | *Ray v. Blair, |
| | + | 343 U.S. 214 (1952) |
| | + | *Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, |
| | + | 573 U.S. 149 (2014) |
| | + | *Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer |
| | + | Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976) |
| | + | *Wesberry v. Sanders, |
| | + | 376 U.S. 1 (1964) |
| | + | *Wyoming v. Oklahoma, |
| | + | 502 U.S. 437 (1992) |
| | + | |
| | == See also == | | == See also == |
| | *[https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Missouri-v.-NY.pdf Missouri Complaint and brief dated July 3, 2024] | | *[https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/Missouri-v.-NY.pdf Missouri Complaint and brief dated July 3, 2024] |