Court : US Supreme Court
Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Demisay - 508 U.S. 581 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus LOCAL 144 NURSING HOME PENSION FUND ET AL. v. DEMISAY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 91-610. Argued January 11, 1993-Decided June 14, 1993 For several years, respondent employers had made contributions to two trust funds (collectively, Greater Funds) on behalf of their employees. In 1984, however, the employers ended their participation in the Greater Funds and agreed, in collective-bargaining agreements with the relevant union, to establish a new set of trust funds (collectively, Southern Funds). To help finance the change between the funds, the employers and other respondents brought an action to compel petitioners, the Greater Funds and their trustees, to transfer to the Southern Funds that portion of the Greater Funds' reserves attributable to respondents' past contributions. Respondents asserted a right to relief under, inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - 535 U.S. 234 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-795. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided April 16, 2002 The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. 2256(8)(A), but also "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture," that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," 2256(8)(D). Thus, 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometime...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Introduction 1. This judgment deals with the first, and major, limb of this appeal. At the end I shall explain the position in relation to the second limb. 2. On 2 June 2006 the appellant ("TNL") published an article ("the Article") which defamed the respondent, ("Sergeant Flood"), who is a Detective Sergeant in the Extradition Unit of the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS"). The Article stated that allegations had been made against Sergeant Flood that had led Scotland Yard to investigate whether he was guilty of corruption. The police investigation subsequently ended with a finding that there was no evidence that Sergeant Flood had acted corruptly and the trial judge, Tugendhat J accepted Sergeant Flood's evidence that he was not guilty of corruption. That finding has not been challenged. The issue before the Court is whether TNL are protected from liability to Sergeant Flood in defamation under the doctrine known as Reynolds privilege. Put shortly Reynolds privilege protects publicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Branti v. Finkel - 445 U.S. 507 (1980) U.S. Supreme Court Branti v. Finkel, 445 U.S. 507 (1980) Branti v. Finkel No. 78-1654 Argued December 4, 1979 Decided March 31, 1980 445 U.S. 507 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents, both Republicans, brought suit in Federal District Court to enjoin petitioner, a Democrat, who had recently been appointed Public Defender of Rockland County, N.Y. by the Democrat-dominated county legislature, from discharging respondents from their positions as Assistant Public Defenders. Finding that respondents had been satisfactorily performing their jobs and had been selected for termination solely because they were Republicans, and that an assistant public defender is neither a policymaker nor a confidential employee, the District Court held that petitioner could not terminate respondents' employment consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and granted injunctive relief. The Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 - 458 U.S. 457 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 No. 81-9 Argued March 22, 1982 Decided June 30, 1982 458 U.S. 457 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In 1978, appellee Seattle School District No. 1 (District) enacted the so-called Seattle Plan for desegregation of its schools. The plan makes extensive use of mandatory busing. Subsequently, a statewide initiative (Initiative 350) was drafted to terminate the use of mandatory busing for purposes of racial integration in the public schools of the State of Washington. The initiative prohibits school boards from requiring any student to attend a school other than the one geographically nearest or next nearest to his home. It sets out a number of broad exceptions to this requirement, however: a student may be assigned beyond his neighborhood school if he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Raines v. Byrd - 521 U.S. 811 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus RAINES, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, ET AL. v. BYRD ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 96-1671. Argued May 27, 1997-Decided June 26, 1997 Appellees, Members of the 104th Congress, voted "nay" when Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act (Act), which gives the President the authority to cancel certain spending and tax benefit measures after he has signed them into law. The day after the Act went into effect, they filed suit against appellants, Executive Branch officials, challenging the Act's constitutionality. The District Court denied appellants' motion to dismiss, finding that appellees' claim that the Act diluted their Article I voting power was sufficient to confer Article III standing; and that their claim was ripe, even though the President had not yet used the Act's cancellation authority, because they found themselves in a position of unantici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kennedy v. Louisiana - 07-343 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KENNEDY v . LOUISIANA certiorari to the supreme court of louisiana No. 07343.Argued April 16, 2008Decided June 25, 2008 Louisiana charged petitioner with the aggravated rape of his then-8-year-old stepdaughter. He was convicted and sentenced to death under a state statute authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioners reliance on Coker v. Georgia , 433 U. S. 584 , which barred the use of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of an adult woman but left open the question which, if any, other nonhomicide crimes can be punished by death consistent with the Eighth Amendment. Reasoning that children are a class in need of special protection, the state court held child rape to be unique in terms of the harm it inflicts upon the victim and society and concluded that, short of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Parham v. J.R. - 442 U.S. 584 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979) Parham v. J.R. No. 75-1690 Argued December 6, 1977 Reargued October 10, 1978 Decided June 20, 1979 442 U.S. 584 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Appellees, children being treated in a Georgia state mental hospital, instituted in Federal District Court a class action against Georgia mental health officials. Appellees sought a declaratory judgment that Georgia's procedures for voluntary commitment of children under the age of 18 to state mental hospitals violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and requested an injunction against their future enforcement. Under the Georgia statute providing for the voluntary admission of children to state regional hospitals, admission begins with an application for hospitalization signed by a parent or guardian and, upon application, the superintendent of the hospital is autho...
Tag this Judgment!