Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). [1]
Case name Citation Date decided Skipper v. South Carolina: 476 U.S. 1: 1986: McLaughlin v. United States: 476 U.S. 16: 1986: EEOC v. FLRA: 476 U.S. 19: 1986: Turner v.
Prior to the civil rights movement in South Carolina, African Americans in the state had very few political rights. South Carolina briefly had a majority-black government during the Reconstruction era after the Civil War, but with the 1876 inauguration of Governor Wade Hampton III, a Democrat who supported the disenfranchisement of blacks, African Americans in South Carolina struggled to ...
South Carolina v. North Carolina , 558 U.S. 256 (2010), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights.
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. , 476 U.S. 498 (1986), is an important U.S. Supreme Court precedent for aboriginal title in the United States decided in the wake of County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State (Oneida II) (1985).
Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill wrote a book detailing the Alex Murdaugh double-homicide trial. Now, she’s facing questions surrounding the ethics of her book.
A date for a parole hearing has been set for convicted murderer Susan Smith more than 30 years after her two young sons were killed. On Monday, the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole ...
Edwards vs. South Carolina monument, Columbia, SC. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house.