Question: Which was decided first, Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. or Texas v. White?

Context articles: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
Texas v. White
United States v. Eichman
Martin Marietta Materials
Texas secession movements
Phillips v. AWH Corp.
AQM-127 SLAT
Martin Marietta
Alamo Gulf Coast Railroad
Republic v. Inglish

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children.
 It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869.
 The case involved a claim by the Reconstruction government of Texas that United States bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War.
 The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment.
 It was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty".
 It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in "Texas v. Johnson" (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning.
Martin Marietta (), an American-based company and a member of the S&P 500 Index, is a leading supplier of aggregates and heavy building materials, with operations spanning 26 states, Canada and the Caribbean.
 In particular, Martin Marietta supplies the resources for roads, sidewalks and foundations.
Texas secession movements principally focus on the secession of Texas during the American Civil War and the activities of organizations that have existed since the 1990s.
 The United States Constitution does not address secession of states and the issue was a topic of debate from after the Revolutionary War up until the Civil War, when the Supreme Court ruled, in "Texas v. White," that states cannot secede.
 Texas claimed to be a sovereign state for nine years prior to the negotiated annexation with the United States, but its claim was not recognized by Mexico, nor did Texas actually control the entirety of its claimed territory.
 This history has affected the state's politics ever since, including its standing in the Confederacy in the Civil War to education and even tourism in the 20th century.
 Modern secession efforts have existed in the state at least since the 1990s, focusing first on the Republic of Texas organization founded by Richard Lance McLaren and later on the Texas Nationalist Movement headed by Daniel Miller.
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
 Cir.
 2005), was a case decided by the Federal Circuit that clarified the hierarchy of evidentiary sources usable for claim construction in patent law.
The AQM-127 Supersonic Low-Altitude Target (SLAT) was a target drone developed during the 1980s by Martin Marietta for use by the United States Navy.
 Derived from Martin Marietta's work on the cancelled ASALM missile, SLAT proved to have severe difficulties in flight testing, and the project was cancelled during 1991.
The Martin Marietta Corporation was an American company founded in 1961 through the merger of Glenn L. Martin Company and American Marietta Corporation.
 The combined company became a leader in chemicals, aerospace, and electronics.
 In 1995, it merged with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin.
The Alamo Gulf Coast Railroad (reporting mark AGCR) is a short-line railroad headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.
 It is a subsidiary of Martin Marietta Materials, a spinoff of Lockheed Martin.
Republic of Texas v. Inglish, Dallam 608 (1844), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas which held that to be a valid claim for land, the land claim must have been authorized by the constitution after March 2, 1836; or by authority under Mexican law prior to that date.