Difference between revisions of "Missouri v. New York"
(improved) |
|||
| 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] | ||
Revision as of 15:57, July 7, 2024
Missouri v. New York is an original proceeding initiated in the U.S. Supreme Court dated July 3, 2024, by the State of Missouri, in an attempt to prevent the interference by the State of New York with the 2024 presidential election in connection with New York County's gag order and scheduled sentencing of Donald Trump based on an alleged business records issue.
| “ | Because original proceedings in this Court follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, S. Ct. R. 17.2,
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).[1] |
” |
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)