Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of the United States - 83 U.S. 130
Tags: Constitutional Law, Sex Equality
Video Summary
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The court rejected the plaintiff's claim that being a citizen of Vermont entitled her to the same rights as citizens of Illinois, as the provision that citizens of each state are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states does not apply to a citizen of the state whose laws are being challenged. The court held that the plaintiff was a citizen of both the United States and Illinois, and admission to the bar of a State is not a privilege and immunity of a citizen of the United States. The court suggested that this right would relate to citizenship of the State for State courts and citizenship of the United States for Federal courts.
The Supreme Court of Illinois denied a married woman's application to be admitted to the bar as an attorney and counsellor-at-law, citing the common law tradition that only men were admitted to the bar. The court held that the legislature had not changed this tradition, but had left it to the court's discretion to establish rules for admission. The court denied the application of females to be admitted as members of the bar, as it was contrary to the rules of the common law and the usages of Westminster Hall from time immemorial. The argument is made that the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution prohibits any State from making or enforcing any law that abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and therefore, the statute law of Illinois or the common law prevailing in that State cannot be used to prevent women from pursuing any lawful employment for a livelihood, including the practice of law.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.