Due Process: Historic Supreme Court Decisions (Litigator Series)
The decision: The Court issued a per curiam , or unsigned, opinion that recommended further proceedings, noting that Reinhardt's opinion shouldn't be considered in judgment because "federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity. The case: A West Virginia law gave tax exemptions on retirement income for many state and local firefighters and law enforcement officers, but excluded federal marshals.
So James and Elaine Dawson sued, arguing that was unfair. The decision: that the law unfairly discriminates among federal employees. The case: This was the Court's second review of this case, which concerns criteria from outdated medical standards that consider intellectual disability as it affects a person's eligibility for execution. The case in question is from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which held that Bobby James Moore lacked intellectual disability and was therefore eligible for the death penalty.
Gideon v. Wainwright - Wikipedia
First Derivative Traders" defined as "the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it. The decision: that Sturgeon was correct , adding that all non-public lands and waters within Alaska's national parks were exempt from the service's authority. The case: A suit by sailors injured in the bombing of the U. Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen, and their families, was complicated when a clerk sent the case summons and complaint to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D. When the minister did not answer the complaint in time, the case entered a default against Sudan.
The decision: that the relevant foreign minister's office must be notified directly, not just the foreign state's American embassy. The decision: T he Court issued a per curiam , or unsigned, opinion that recommends further proceedings in the case. Devries and Shirley McAfee sued manufacturers of parts used in US Navy ships, alleging that their late husbands had developed cancer after being exposed to asbestos from the ships.
The manufacturers objected to taking responsibility, saying they could not be held liable for the sailors' injuries because they released their products out in "bare metal" form.
Rimini took issue with the award including non-taxable costs. The decision: that the circuit court should not have awarded non-taxable costs to the company.
The Supreme Court Case That Enshrined White Supremacy in Law
The decision: that Loos must pay taxes on the portion of a jury award for compensating him for lost wages while he was unable to work due to his injury because damages for lost wages are considered compensation. The decision: that registration of a copyright claim has only been "made" after the copyright office has processed the application and registered the copyright, not when the application is filed. The agency was attempting to repair a power line during a fishing tournament.
Courts pointed to the agency's status as a government organization as possible exemption from responding to such a petition. The decision: that the agency is not exempt from suits concerning incidents not connected to its governmental authority. The case: Russell Bucklew was scheduled to be executed on May 21, , but filed an action in federal district court that said lethal injection would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
Because he suffered from a unique congenital condition, Bucklew said he wouldn't die efficiently. The decision: that Bucklew didn't satisfy the necessary burden of proving that the state found and denied an appropriate alternative execution method. The case: Michael Biestek appealed the Social Security Administration's denial of his disability benefits application and was told the judge and court in the case did not have appropriate medical-expert testimony to inform Biestek's appeal.
The decision: that an expert's testimony will not be categorically from qualifying as " substantial evidence " in federal court if they do not provide data supporting their argument during a Social Security disability benefits hearing.
The impact and history behind the Sixth Amendment right to counsel
The case: Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky challenged two Indiana state laws that focused on the disposal of fetal remains by abortion providers and banned abortions on the basis of sex, race, and disability. The decision: In a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion , the Court upheld an Indiana law relating to the disposition of fetal remains as a legitimate state interest.
The Court declined to the review the law that considers demographic factors for abortion. Read more: The Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law that requires aborted fetuses to be buried, and experts say it's a dark sign for abortion rights. The case: Ricky Lee Smith's claim for review concerning his application and hearing for disability benefits that was dismissed as untimely, prompting the issue if the denial by the Appeals Council based on timeliness is subject to judicial review under the Social Security Act.
The decision: that a disability claim that is denied based on timeliness is open to judicial review. The case: George Jackson filed a counterclaim against Citibank as part of a series of cases that concerned collections for the amount owed on a home water-treatment system, sparking the issue if the Class Action Fairness Act allows a counterclaim defendant to move a claim from state to federal court.
The case: After Russell Bartlett sued Alaska police officers for damages on the basis of claims including false arrest, courts found themselves in disagreement over the possibility of a plaintiff making a retaliatory arrest prosecution with probable cause present. The decision: that probable cause in an arrest defeats the potential First Amendment claim of a retaliatory arrest. The case: When garment manufacturer Tempnology, LLC filed for bankruptcy, it moved to reject its licensing agreement with Mission Product Holdings, sparking the question of a party's powers to terminate the rights of a licensing agreement that would otherwise survive an agreement breach under non-bankruptcy law.
The decision: that there was a plausible claim for money damages by Mission products and that a bankruptcy debtor cannot rescind agreed upon rights in an existing licensing agreement. The case: Clayvin Herrera , an enrolled member of the Crow Tribe of Indians, was cited with two hunting-related misdemeanors under Wyoming law and convicted after the state court held that tribe members do not have off-reservation treaty hunting rights in the state. The decision: that the state's admission to the Union did not invalidate the tribe's federal treaty that granted them the right to hunt on "unoccupied" lands, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not become "occupied" when it was created.
- Perfection 2?
- McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
- All the decisions the Supreme Court made in 12222.
- Due process and the rights of the accused: lesson overview (article) | Khan Academy!
The decision: that the question of the agency's disapproval in providing a warning on a product should be left to a judge, not a jury. The case: Parsons employee Billy Joe Hunt was charged after he told FBI agents about a fraudulent scheme that transpired during his employer's contract for munitions cleanup in Iraq.
Hunt then filed a qui tam action alleging the contracting firms had violated the False Claims Act with false actions and payments. This sparked the issue of Hunt, as a relator in a False Claims Act, and his ability within the case's statute of limitations. The decision: that a private person may rely on the statute of limitations in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene, but cannot act as a US official, as he is a private individual. Hyatt's state tax returns. Hyatt sued the FTB in Nevada court, which the agency objected to by citing several exemptions it enjoyed in its home state of California.
After disagreement among states, the Court was called to weigh on the issue of precedent established by Nevada v.
- Bipolar: How My Wife Saved My Life From The Enemy Within.
- The writings of Benjamin Franklin V6.
- When The Sh*t Hits The Fan: How to Fail Forward & Turn Any Mistake into A Victory NO MATTER WHAT.
- Short of the Glory: The Fall and Redemption of Edward F. Prichard Jr..
- DC Universe Online Legends Vol. 2.
Hall, which allows for a state to be sued in another state's courts. The decision: that Nevada v. Hall is overruled , and that states are immune from suit in the courts of other states. The rule in question defines a crime of violence as if it "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another," and in another section as "by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
The decision: that the rule including a firearm in the definition for "crime of violence" is unconstitutionally vague.
Rucho v. Common Cause
He alleged that since his injury was caused by a missing exhaust mechanism, it made the vessel legally unseaworthy. The decision: that p unitive damages cannot be recovered in the case of a maritime claim of unseaworthiness. In , representatives of the Trust filed a claim for a refund of taxes paid to the North Carolina, while Rice's daughter and beneficiary lived in Connecticut, which the department denied.
The decision: , in a decision that cited the part of the Due Process Clause that prohibits a state from taxing trust income based on beneficiaries' in-state residency. The case: After Hamid Mohamed Ahmed Ali Rehaif visited a shooting range months after his immigration status was terminated, FBI agents found ammunition in his hotel room. After a trial found Rehaif guilty of violating US code that prohibits unlawful residents from possessing a firearm or ammunition, Rehaif objected to the government's attempt to assert that the US "is not required to prove that the defendant knew that he was illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
The decision: that the government must prove that the defendant is knowingly in possession of a firearm and that they are barred from possessing a firearm. The case: After authorities from the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania identified gravestones on her property, she disputed an ordinance that said she could restrict access to the area, though it was part of her property.
The decision: that property owners are entitled to filing a Fifth Amendment claim under if the government taking ownership of property without compensation. The case: Herman Gundy was convicted for traveling from Pennsylvania to New York and then staying in New York without registering as a sex offender.
The various authorities concerned with Gundy's status surfaced the question of who is responsible for enforcing registration requirements for offenders convicted after the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act. The decision: that the US Attorney General was an appropriate agent to enforce sex offender registration regulations. The case: Edward G. McDonough, then the commissioner of the Rensselaer County elections board, filed a lawsuit claiming that he had been targeted in an investigation over fabricated election results after he was acquitted in the investigation.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
McDonough's suit was dismissed on the basis of timeliness, but courts disagreed over when the three-year statute of limitations for the case began. The decision: that a claim takes hold when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action," so the statute of limitations for McDonough's claim began when he won the acquittal. The decision: that the language was binding if the order is the equivalent of a "legislative rule" and if the subject of the rule, PDR Network, was able to seek judicial review of the order's use.
The decision: that public access channels are not subject to constitutional liability. The decision: that the law does not have a sufficient description of authority or mining regulations to preempt the law, and that states have the "power to regulate mining on private lands within their borders. The case: Jamar Quarles' conviction for third-degree home invasion as a violent felony was remanded after the Court's decision in Johnson v.
United States that said a clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act on what constitutes "violent felony" was unconstitutionally vague. The decision: that the generic, state-level definition of burglary specifies an individual remained in a building and had intent to commit a crime, against Quarles' argument. The Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined as much, sparking the question if government agencies can benefit from the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which previously protected individual people.
The case: Brian Newton sued Parker Drilling Management Services for wage and hour violations he said he experienced during his time on the outer Continental Shelf, off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. Newton sued according to requirements under California law, sparking concerns across courts about the interaction of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act in informing allowances of such workers.
The decision: that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act is substituted by state law only if there are gaps in federal law, so lower courts will have to hear Newton's case again.
In , the agency adjusted the calculation by which it would provide payouts to hospitals that treat higher numbers of low-income patients. The changes would lower reimbursement rates for a total discrepancy of hundreds of millions of dollars. The decision: that the department neglected its duty to provide notice and opportunity to comment before implementing a new rule regarding Medicare reimbursement.
The case: A plaintiff sought attorneys' fees from real estate developer Bradley Taggart after he received a discharge in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Taggart filed a motion in bankruptcy court to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt for violating the discharge injunction as the court initially determined the fees were exempt from the discharge order because the defendant had "returned to the fray" in state court post-petition. The Court weighed in on if bankruptcy code overrides normal grounds for civil contempt where a creditor believes in good faith that the discharge injunction doesn't apply.
The decision: that a creditor may be held in civil contempt for violating a bankruptcy court's discharge order. The case: Lois Davis alleged sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting the harassment from her employer, Fort Bend County, Texas.