Court : US Supreme Court
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n - 08-205 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTIONCOMMISSION appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 08205.Argued March 24, 2009Reargued September 9, 2009Decided January 21, 2010 As amended by 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an electioneering communication or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S.C. 441b. An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary election, 434(f)(3)(A), and that is publicly distributed, 11 CFR 100.29(a)(2), which in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kurns, et al. v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., et al. 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 KURNS, executrix of the ESTATE OF CORSON, DECEASED, etal. v. RAILROAD FRICTION PRODUCTS CORP. etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 10879.Argued November 9, 2011Decided February 29, 2012 George Corson worked as a welder and machinist for a railroad carrier. After retirement, Corson was diagnosed with mesothelioma. He and his wife, a petitioner here, sued respondents Railroad Friction Products Corporation and Viad Corp in state court, claiming injury from Corsons exposure to asbe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Regan v. Time, Inc. - 468 U.S. 641 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984) Regan v. Time, Inc. No. 82-729 Argued November 9, 1983 Decided July 3, 1984 468 U.S. 641 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. 474 makes it a crime to photograph any obligation or other security of the United States. But 18 U.S.C. 504(1) permits the printing or publishing of illustrations of any such obligation or other security "for philatelic, numismatic, educational, historical, or newsworthy purposes in articles, books, journals, newspapers, or albums" if the illustrations are in black and white and less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half the size of the original and if the negative and plates used in making the illustrations are destroyed after their final authorized use. Appellee magazine publisher, after being warned that it was violating 474 and 504 by publishing a photographic ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz - 482 U.S. 342 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342 (1987) O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz No. 85-1722 Argued March 24, 1987 Decided June 9, 1987 482 U.S. 342 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents, prison inmates and members of the Islamic faith, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 contending that two policies adopted by New Jersey prison officials prevented them from attending Jumu'ah, a Muslim congregational service held on Friday afternoons, and thereby violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The first such policy, Standard 853, required inmates in respondents' custody classifications to work outside the buildings in which they were housed and in which Jumu'ah was held, while the second, a policy memorandum, prohibited inmates assigned to outside work from returning to those buildings during the day. The Federal District Court c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip - 499 U.S. 1 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1 (1991) Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Haslip No. 89-1279 Argued Oct. 3, 1990 Decided March 4, 1991 No. 89-1279 499 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus After respondents' health insurance lapsed when one Ruffin, an agent for petitioner insurance company and another, unaffiliated insurance company, misappropriated premiums issued by respondents' employer for payment to the other insurer, respondents filed an action for damages in state court, claiming fraud by Ruffin and seeking to hold petitioner liable on a respondeat superior theory. Following the trial court's charge instructing the jury that it could award punitive damages if, inter alia, it determined there was liability for fraud, the jury, among other things, returned a verdict for respondent Haslip of over $1 million against petitioner and Ruffin, which sum includ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. - 505 U.S. 504 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus CIPOLLONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CIPOLLONE v. LIGGETT GROUP, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 90-1038. Argued October 8, 1991-Reargued January 13, 1992Decided June 24, 1992 Section 4 of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (1965 Act) required a conspicuous label warning of smoking's health hazards to be placed on every package of cigarettes sold in this country, while 5 of that Act, captioned "Preemption," provided: "(a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the [ 4] statement ... , shall be required on any cigarette package," and "(b) No [such] statement ... shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with" 4. Section 5(b) was amended by the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (1969 Act) to specify: "No requirement or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD HOPE The appellants are insurance companies, whose business includes the writing of employers' liability insurance policies. They undertake to indemnify the employer in respect of any liability incurred by it for harm or injury arising out of the employer's negligence. They have brought these proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of an Act of the Scottish Parliament which was passed on 11 March 2009, received the Royal Assent on 17 April 2009 and came into force on 17 June 2009. It is the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 ("the 2009 Act") which provides that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis shall constitute, and shall be treated as always having constituted, actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury.It is no secret that the purpose of the 2009 Act was to reverse the decision of the House of Lords in Rothwell v Chemical and Insulating Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 39, [2008] AC 281 ("Rothwell"). In tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Heckler v. Chaney - 470 U.S. 821 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) Heckler v. Chaney No. 83-1878 Argued December 3, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 470 U.S. 821 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent prison inmates were convicted of capital offenses and sentenced to death by lethal injection of drugs. They petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that use of the drugs for such a purpose violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), and requesting that the FDA take various enforcement actions to prevent those violations. The FDA refused the request. Respondents then brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services, making the same claim and seeking the same enforcement actions. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner, holding that nothing in the FDCA indicated an intent to circumsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Chicago v. Morales - 527 U.S. 41 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus CITY OF CHICAGO v. MORALES ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS No.97-1121. Argued December 9, 1998-Decided June 10, 1999 Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promptly obey such an order has violated the ordinance. The police department's General Order 92-4 purports to limit officers' enforcement discretion by confining arrest authority to designated officers, establishing detailed criteria for defining street gangs and membership therein, and providing for designated, but publicly undisclosed, enforcement areas. Two trial judges upheld the ordinance's constitutionality, but 11 others ruled it invalid. The Illino...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arizona v. United States 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. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11182.Argued April 25, 2012Decided June 25, 2012 An Arizona statute known as S.B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemean...
Tag this Judgment!