<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Change in State Law Decisions</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/state-change/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Bush v. Texas</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_511/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Case v. Nebraska</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_843/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Doe v. Delaware</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_5932/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Fusari v. Steinberg</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_848/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Hill v. Printing Industries Of Gulf Coast</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_456/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Kovacs v. Brewer</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_200/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Lords Landing Village  v. Continental Ins. Co.</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is it appropriate, when a holding of the federal appellate court below is called into question by a recent decision of a State's highest court, for the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the lower court, and remand the case for further consideration?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that this case fits within the category of cases in which the Court has held that it is proper to issue a GVR order, or to grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the lower court, and remand the case for further consideration. There was reason to question the correctness of the Court of Appeals' original decision because the decision by Maryland's highest court explicitly disapproved the two cases on which the Court of Appeals had primarily relied. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_1033/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Mills v. Rogers</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1417/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Paulussen v. Herion</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_88/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Selvage v. Collins</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_87_6700/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
