IN RE WINDSOR; IN RE WINDSOR; IN RE WINDSOR; AND IN RE STARLING

U.S. | 2011-01-18

Nos. 10-632; No. 10-633; No. 10-690; No. 10-6370

562 U.S. 1177 Supreme Court of the United States (2011) Positive Treatment

Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc., 565 U.S. 606 (U.S. 2012)

…ate rates violate § 30(A). Ante, at 614. But that fact-specific question is not the one before us; we chose not to grant certiorari on the question whether California’s rates complied with § 30(A), limiting our grant to the cause of action question. 562 U. S. 1177 (2011). The majority also asserts that the lower courts must “decide whether these cases may proceed directly under the Supremacy Clause now that the agency has acted.” Ante, at 616. The majority contends that the parties have not “fully argued thi…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw