<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Supreme Court Jurisdiction or Authority on Appeal from State Courts</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/scotus-state/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Costarelli v. Massachusetts</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_6739/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Gotthilf v. Sills</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_50/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Jinks v. Richland County</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;If a federal court with jurisdiction over a civil action declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over other related claims, the claims will be dismissed and must be refiled in state court. To prevent the limitations period on those claims from expiring, 28 USC section 1367(d) requires state courts to toll the period while a supplemental claim is pending in federal court. In 1994, Susan Jinks filed a federal-court action against Richland County, South Carolina. The District Court granted the county summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Jinks's state-law claims. Jinks then filed the supplemental claims in state court and won. In reversing, the Supreme Court of South Carolina found the state-law claims time-barred. Although they would not have been barred under section 1367(d)'s tolling rule, the court held section 1367(d) unconstitutional as applied to claims brought in state court against a State's political subdivisions.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_258/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Key v. Doyle</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1057/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Michigan v. Long</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;David Long was convicted for possession of marijuana found by Michigan police in the passenger compartment and trunk of his car. The police searched the passenger compartment because they suspected Long's vehicle contained weapons potentially dangerous to the officers. After a state appellate court affirmed the conviction, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_82_256/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;This case was granted to address an issue related to 357 U.S. 449.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_753/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Posadas de Puerto Rico Ass. v. Tourism Co. of PR</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;A Puerto Rican law restricted advertising by the island's casino gambling establishments. Even though gambling was a legal activity in Puerto Rico, the law only allowed advertising that was targeted at tourists.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1903/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
