Court : US Supreme Court
Hibbs v. Winn - 02-1809 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 HIBBS V. WINN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HIBBS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. WINN et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 021809. Argued January 20, 2004Decided June 14, 2004 Plaintiffs-respondents, Arizona taxpayers, filed suit in federal court against the Director of Arizonas Department of Revenue (Director) seeking to enjoin the operation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 431089 on Establishment Clause grounds. Arizonas law authorizes an income-tax credit for payments to nonprofit school tuition organizations (STOs) that award scholarships to students in private elementary or secondary schools. Section 431089 provides that STOs may not designate schools that discriminate on the basis of race, color, handicap, familial status or national origin, 431089(F), but does not preclude STOs from designating schools that provide religious instruction or give religion-ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good - 07-562 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 ALTRIA GROUP, INC. V. GOOD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALTRIA GROUP, INC., etal. v . GOOD etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 07562.Argued October 6, 2008Decided December 15, 2008 Respondents, smokers of petitioners light cigarettes, filed suit, alleging that petitioners violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently advertising that their light cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine than regular brands. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, finding the state-law claim pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Labeling Act). The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empts respondents fraud claim. Held: Neither the Labeling Acts pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commissions actions in this field pre-empt respondents sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Milner v. Department of Navy - 09-1163 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MILNER v . DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 091163.Argued December 1, 2010Decided March 7, 2011 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to make Government records available to the public, subject to nine exemptions. This case concerns Exemption 2, which protects from disclosure material related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 5 U. S.C.552(b)(2). This provision replaced an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exemption for any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency, 5 U. S.C. 1002 (1964 ed.). Congress believed that the sweep of the phrase internal management had led to excessive withholding, and drafted Exemption 2 to have a narrower reach. Department of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U. S. 352 , 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Maryland v. King NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MARYLAND v. KING certiorari to the court of appeals of maryland No. 12207.Argued February 26, 2013Decided June 3, 2013 After his 2009 arrest on first- and second-degree assault charges, respondent King was processed through a Wicomico County, Maryland, facility, where booking personnel used a cheek swab to take a DNA sample pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act (Act). The swab was matched to an unsolved 2003 rape, and King was charged with that crime. He moved to suppress the DNA match, arguing that the Act violated the Fourth Amendment, but the Circuit ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Missouri v. Jenkins - 495 U.S. 33 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) Missouri v. Jenkins No. 88-1150 Argued Oct. 30, 1989 Decided April 18, 1990 495 U.S. 33 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the District Court found that the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) and petitioner State had operated a segregated school system within the KCMSD. The court issued an order detailing a desegregation remedy and the financing necessary to implement it. Although it allocated the costs of the remedy between the governmental entities, the court determined that several state law provisions would prevent KCMSD from being able to pay its share. Rather than exercising what it believed to be its power to order a tax increase to fund the remedy, the court chose to impose other means -- including enjoining the effect of one of the state law provisions -- to allow KCMSD to r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel - 524 U.S. 498 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-42. Argued March 4, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 In 1946, a historic labor agreement between coal operators and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) led to the creation of benefit funds that provided for the medical expenses of miners and their dependents, with the precise benefits determined by UMWA-appointed trustees. Those trusts served as the model for the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund (1947 W &R Fund), which was established by the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1947 (1947 NBCWA). The Fund used proceeds of a royalty on coal production to provide benefits to miners and their families, and trustees determined benefit levels and other matters. The 1950 NBCWA created a new fund (1950 W &R Fund), which used a fix...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Rapanos v. United States - 04-1034 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RAPANOS et ux., etal. v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 041034.Argued February 21, 2006Decided June 19, 2006 As relevant here, the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) makes it unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into navigable waters without a permit, 33 U. S.C. 1311(a), 1342(a), and defines navigable waters as the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas, 1362(7). The Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), which issues permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters, interprets the waters of the United States expansively to include not only traditional navigable waters, 33 CFR 328.3(a)(1), but also other defined waters, 328.3(a)(2), (3); [t]ributaries of such waters, 328.3(a)(5); and wetlands adjacent to such waters and tributaries, 328.3(a)(7)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc. - 06-480 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. v . PSKS, INC., dba KAYS KLOSET KAYS SHOES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 06480.Argued March 26, 2007Decided June 28, 2007 Given its policy of refusing to sell to retailers that discount its goods below suggested prices, petitioner (Leegin) stopped selling to respondents (PSKS) store. PSKS filed suit, alleging, inter alia, that Leegin violated the antitrust laws by entering into vertical agreements with its retailers to set minimum resale prices. The District Court excluded expert testimony about Leegins pricing policys procompetitive effects on the ground that Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. , 220 U. S. 373 , makes it per se illegal under 1 of the Sherman Act for a manufacturer and it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc. NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ARIZONA etal. v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 1271.Argued March 18, 2013Decided June 17, 2013 The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) requires States to accept and use a uniform federal form to register voters for federal elections. 42 U.S.C. 1973gg4(a)(1). That Federal Form, developed by the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), requires only that an applicant aver, under penalty of perjury, that he is a citizen. Arizona l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nix v. Whiteside - 475 U.S. 157 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) Nix v. Whiteside No. 84-1321 Argued November 5, 1985 Decided February 26, 1986 475 U.S. 157 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In preparing for his Iowa state court trial on a murder charge, respondent consistently told his attorney that, although he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand when he stabbed the victim, he was convinced that the victim had a gun. Respondent's companions who were present during the stabbing told counsel that they had not seen a gun, and no gun was found. Counsel advised respondent that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish a claim of self-defense, and that only a reasonable belief that the victim had a gun nearby was necessary, even though no gun was actually present. However, during preparation for direct examination shortly before trial, respondent for the first time told counse...
Tag this Judgment!