Home/Supreme Court/Laird v. South Carolina

Laird v. South Carolina

455 U.S. 985, 71 L. Ed. 2d 844
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 1, 1982
DocketNo. 81-1035
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 455 U.S. 985 (Laird v. South Carolina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Laird v. South Carolina, 455 U.S. 985, 71 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1982).

Opinion

Appeal from Sup. Ct. S. C. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Holley v. City of Roanoke, Alabama
162 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (M.D. Alabama, 2001)
Knauf v. Elias
742 A.2d 980 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Mixon v. Ohio
193 F.3d 389 (Sixth Circuit, 1999)
Spivey v. State of Ohio
999 F. Supp. 987 (N.D. Ohio, 1998)
Wingate v. Estate of Ryan
676 A.2d 144 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1996)
African-American Citizens for Change v. St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners
24 F.3d 1052 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Prewitt v. Moore
840 F. Supp. 436 (N.D. Mississippi, 1993)
African-American Citizens for Change v. Robbins
825 F. Supp. 885 (E.D. Missouri, 1993)
Crespo v. Stapf
608 A.2d 241 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1992)
Ragan v. Dukes
601 A.2d 739 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Stephen Juzwin and Mary Juzwin, His Wife v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., Individually and as Successor to Johnson's Company Carey Canadian Mines Amtorg Trading Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Flintkote Mines, Ltd. Turner & Newall, P.L.C. John Doe Corporation (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Corporations or Companies, Engaged in the Business of Mining, Manufacturing, Distributing or Supplying Finished and Unfinished Asbestos Products and Fibers to Plaintiffs' Employer Gaf/ruberoid) Judy Doe Corporations (A Fictitious Name Representing One or More Legal Entities Who Stand in the Shoes of the John Doe Either as Successor in Interest, Alter Ego, or by Other Equitable Doctrine Which Makes Them Responsible for the John Doe Liability). Amtorg Trading Corp., Third-Party v. Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Flintkote Mines, Ltd., National Gypsum Company and Turner & Newall, P.L.C., Third-Party and Carey Canada, Inc., and Third-Party v. Lac D'AmiAnte Du Quebec Limitee, Individually and as Successor to Lake Asbestos of Quebec, Ltd. And Bell Asbestos Mines Limited, and Leonard J. Buck, Inc., Third-Party and Fourth-Party v. Associated Ore & Metal Corp., Ltd., Fourth-Party Appeal of Carey Canada, Inc.
900 F.2d 686 (Third Circuit, 1990)
Irby v. Virginia State Board Of Elections
889 F.2d 1352 (Fourth Circuit, 1990)
Irby v. Fitz-Hugh
692 F. Supp. 610 (E.D. Virginia, 1988)
Warren McCleskey Cross-Appellant v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Cross-Appellee
753 F.2d 877 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)
Coons v. American Honda Motor Co.
463 A.2d 921 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983)
In Re Garay
444 A.2d 1107 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1982)
Hopkins v. Kelsey-Hayes, Inc.
677 F.2d 301 (Third Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
455 U.S. 985, 71 L. Ed. 2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laird-v-south-carolina-scotus-1982.