Conversació joco-seria entre Cento el formal y Tito bufalampolla, llauradors del terme de Payporta, sobre les grans festes, que à honor ... del ... Rey Don Carlos Tercer ... fa la ... Ciutat de Valencia en lo gran dia de la seua [Texto impreso] ...]

Hay un ejemplar encuadernado con: Romans, y coloqui nou, pera divertir el humor y desterrar la melancolia, yà que no tenim dinès ... (NP849.91/3085).

Sento, y Tito, llauradors honrats del terme de Payporta ... van referint alternativament tota la Procesò de Gracies, que feu la ... Ciutat de Valencia per lo feliz part de ... Doña Luisa de Parma, real princesa de ... España [Texto impreso]

Hay un ejemplar encuadernado con: Coloqui nou (XVIII/F-70).

Utilización de la herramienta Speed Court para la valoración del rendimiento en porteros de fútbol

Con el objetivo de valorar la efectividad de la técnica de desplazamiento en porteros de fútbol y la velocidad de movimiento, se realizó un estudio con 9 porteros de fútbol juveniles de alto nivel de la cantera de un equipo de la primera división española. Se ha pretendido apoyar el trabajo del cuerpo técnico. Se realizaron tres tests, un primer Test y un Re-test para validar los datos y un Post-Test para ver la evolución de los jugadores a las seis semanas. Durante esas seis semanas, un sujeto entrenó en la herramienta de valoración. El material utilizado fue la herramienta Speed-Court. Los resultados mostraron que la técnica de desplazamiento libre siempre es más eficiente en dichos tests y que los jugadores mejoraron en uno de los test tras seis semanas de entrenamiento. El jugador que entrenó durante las seis semanas mejoró todos los resultados salvo en la técnica de portero desde atrás.

2.6 Judge William F. Frank, Chief Justice, Missouri State Supreme Court

In February, 1937, the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William F. Frank, issued their verdict that supported the Missouri statute that allowed for out-of-state tuition for Missouri blacks to continue their education if the desired program was not offered at Lincoln University Once again, the legal team of Lloyd Gaines was not undaunted.

2.5 Missouri State Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City, Missouri

On December 12, 1936, Charles Hamilton Houston was in Jefferson City, Missouri arguing Gaines’ appeal in front of the Missouri Supreme Court. Houston added some teeth to his argument by adding that neither “the slender hope” that Gaines may someday attend a new law program at Lincoln nor the provision of tuition scholarships to attend an out-of-state law school met the US Constitution’s requirement of equal treatment regardless of race.

2.4 Judge W. M. Dinwiddie Boone County, Missouri, 13th Circuit Court

Two weeks later, Judge Dinwiddie issued his decision in favor of Canada and the University. Houston was expecting this and appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court.

3.4 United States Supreme Court 1938

Gaines’ legal team, led by Houston, had faith in the justice system of the United States and anticipated getting a fair trial at the federal level. So far, all decisions had occurred in Missouri, a state with a segregated system.The fact that Gaines v Canada had reached the Supreme Court was promising indeed. It was rare that any case involving African-Americans would be considered by the highest court in the land. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had been appointing Justices that were more willing to consider cases concerned with civil rights. On November 9, 1938, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the Gaines v Canada case. The defense was unmoved by the rude treatment and made their presentation with professionalism and aplomb. Houston’s argument remained steadfast; not only was the state of Missouri’s statute concerning out-of-state tuition for blacks in violation of the 14th Amendment, but the very idea of segregation itself violated the Constitution. William Hogsett, the attorney for the University of Missouri, countered that the school was merely following state laws. The MU legal team was flustered as questions from the bench forced them to correct overstatements regarding Missouri’s “generosity to Negro students”. With crossed fingers and high hopes, the Gaines legal team rested their case and awaited the verdict. Meanwhile, Lloyd Gaines was still in Michigan. Lloyd held a W.P.A. job as a Civil Service Clerk and was in constant contact with his family and attorneys. His mood in his correspondence was hopeful and positive.

3.5 Supreme Court Justice James P. McReynolds

However, there was an obstacle on the court, namely James Clark McReynolds, an avowed racist. In fact, during the hearing, McReynolds turned his chair around and faced the wall when Houston presented his argument.

3.7 Chief Justice Hughes Delivered the Opinion of the Court for Gaines vs. Canada Case

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes announced the 6-2 decision on Gaines v Canada on December 12, 1938. Writing for the majority, Hughes held that when the state provides legal training, it must provide it to every qualified person; it cannot send them to other states. Key to the conclusion was that there was no provision for legal education of blacks in Missouri, which is where Missouri law guaranteeing equal protection applies. To the court, sending Gaines to another state would have been irrelevant.

1.2 News Article About US Supreme Court Justices Rule in Favor of Lloyd Gaines by 6 to 2 Vote in The Call Newspaper

Following the decision, northern newspapers hailed it as “the Supreme Court speaking out in defense of the quality of human rights.” The Kansas City Call, one of the leading black newspapers in Missouri, declared, “If keeping the races separate is so important to Missourians that coeducation is unthinkable then let them count the cost!” The NAACP’s long-term plan for casting financial burden upon the Jim Crow states was now a reality.

3.5 The Missouri State Supreme Court Conferred a Honorary Law License for Lloyd Gaines.

On September 28th, 2006, the Missouri State Supreme Court conferred a posthumous law license for Mr. Gaines.

The Keyes to Reclaiming the Racial History Of the Roberts Court

This article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and circumstances surrounding Brown v. Board of Education. For the Court, Brown symbolizes all that is wrong with the history of race in the United States - legal segregation, explicit racial discord, and vicious and random acts of violence. Though Roberts Court opinions suggest that some of those vestiges still exits, the bulk of its jurisprudence indicate the opposite. With Brown’s basic factual premises as its point of reference, the Court has consistently argued that the nation has made tremendous strides away from the condition of racial bigotry, intolerance, and inequity. The article accordingly argues that the Roberts Court reliance on Brown to understand racial progress is anachronistic. Especially as the nation’s focus for racial inequality turned national in scope, the same binaries in Brown that had long served to explain the history of race relations in the United States (such as Black-White, North-South, and Urban-Rural) were giving way to massive multicultural demographic and geographic transformations in the United States in the years and decades after World War II. All of the familiar tropes so clear in Brown and its progeny could no longer fully describe the current reality of shifting and transforming patterns of race relations in the United States. In order to reclaim the history of race from the Roberts Court, the article assesses a case that more accurately symbolizes the recent history and current status of race relations today: Keyes v. School District No. 1. This was the first Supreme Court case to confront how the binaries of cases like Brown proved of little probative value in addressing how and in what ways race and racial discrimination was changing in the United States. Thus, understanding Keyesand the history it reflects reveals much about how and in what ways the Roberts Court should rethink its conclusions regarding the history of race relations in the United States for the last 60 years.

The college, the market, and the court, or, Woman's relation to education, labor, and law

by Caroline H. Dall.

The eight hours day for wage earning women: United States Supreme Court upholds the California law : List of eight hours laws

National Consumers' League.