Court : US Supreme Court
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette - 515 U.S. 753 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD ET AL. v. PINETTE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 94-780. Argued April 26, 1995-Decided June 29, 1995 Ohio law makes Capitol Square, the statehouse plaza in Columbus, a forum for discussion of public questions and for public activities, and gives petitioner Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (Board) responsibility for regulating access to the square. To use the square, a group must simply fill out an official application form and meet several speechneutral criteria. Mter the Board denied, on Establishment Clause grounds, the application of respondent Ku Klux Klan to place an unattended cross on the square during the 1993 Christmas season, the Klan filed this suit. The District Court entered an injunction requiring issuance of the requested permit, and the Board permitted the Klan to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida - 517 U.S. 44 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA v. FLORIDA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 94-12. Argued October 11, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, passed by Congress pursuant to the Indian Commerce Clause, allows an Indian tribe to conduct certain gaming activities only in conformance with a valid compact between the tribe and the State in which the gaming activities are located. 25 U. S. C. 2710(d)(I)(C). Under the Act, States have a duty to negotiate in good faith with a tribe toward the formation of a compact, 2710(d)(3)(A), and a tribe may sue a State in federal court in order to compel performance of that duty, 2710(d)(7). In this 2710(d)(7) suit, respondents, Florida and its Governor, moved to dismiss petitioner Seminole Tribe's complaint on the ground that the suit violated Florida's sovereign immunity from suit in federal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Loving v. United States - 517 U.S. 748 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus LOVING v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES No. 94-1966. Argued January 9, 1996-Decided June 3,1996 A general court-martial found petitioner Loving, an Army private, guilty of both premeditated murder and felony murder under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. 918(1), (4). Finding three aggravating factors-(l) that the premeditated murder was committed during a robbery, Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1004(c)(7)(B); (2) that Loving acted as the triggerman in the felony murder, RCM 1004(c)(8); and (3) that Loving, having been found guilty of the premeditated murder, had committed a second murder, also proved at his single trial, RCM 1004(c)(7)(J)-the court-martial sentenced Loving to death. The commander who convened the court-martial approved the findings and sentence. The United States Army Court of Military Review and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr - 518 U.S. 470 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MEDTRONIC, INC. v. LOHR ET VIR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 95-754. Argued April 23, 1996-Decided June 26,1996* Enacted "to provide for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for human use," the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA or Act) classifies such devices based on the risk that they pose to the public. Class III devices pose the greatest risk and, thus, are subject to a rigorous premarket approval (PMA) process. However, most Class III devices on the market have not been through the PMA process due to two statutory exceptions. Realizing that existing devices could not be withdrawn from the market while the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) completed PMA analyses, Congress included a provision allowing pre-1976 devices to remain on the market without FDA approval until the requisite PMA is completed. The Act also permits devices...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Washington v. Glucksberg - 521 U.S. 702 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus WASHINGTON ET AL. v. GLUCKSBERG ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 96-110. Argued January 8, 1997-Decided June 26,1997 It has always been a crime to assist a suicide in the State of Washington. The State's present law makes "[p]romoting a suicide attempt" a felony, and provides: "A person is guilty of [that crime] when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." Respondents, four Washington physicians who occasionally treat terminally ill, suffering patients, declare that they would assist these patients in ending their lives if not for the State's assisted-suicide ban. They, along with three gravely ill plaintiffs who have since died and a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide, filed this suit against petitioners, the State and its Attorney General, seeking a declaration that the ban is, on ...
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
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
Bragdon v. Abbott - 524 U.S. 624 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus BRAGDON v. ABBOTT ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-156. Argued March 30, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 Respondent Abbott is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but had not manifested its most serious symptoms when the incidents in question occurred. At that time, she went to petitioner's office for a dental examination and disclosed her HIV infection. Petitioner discovered a cavity and informed respondent of his policy against filling cavities of HIV-infected patients in his office. He offered to perform the work at a hospital at no extra charge, though respondent would have to pay for use of the hospital's facilities. She declined and filed suit under, inter alia, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits discrimination against any individual "on the basis of disability in the ... enjoyment of the ... services ... of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Scheffer - 523 U.S. 303 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. SCHEFFER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES No. 96-1133. Argued November 3, 1997-Decided March 31, 1998 A polygraph examination of respondent airman indicated, in the opinion of the Air Force examiner administering the test, that there was "no deception" in respondent's denial that he had used drugs since enlisting. Urinalysis, however, revealed the presence of methamphetamine, and respondent was tried by general court-martial for using that drug and for other offenses. In denying his motion to introduce the polygraph evidence to support his testimony that he did not knowingly use drugs, the military judge relied on Military Rule of Evidence 707, which makes polygraph evidence inadmissible in court-martial proceedings. Respondent was convicted on all counts, and the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Force...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2120; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)157; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)762; 1997(1)BLJR263; 1998CriLJ2930; 1998(3)SCALE53; (1998)4SCC626; [1998]2SCR870
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. On 26th July, 1993, a motion of no-confidence was moved in the Lok Sabha against the minority government of P.V. Narasimha Rao. The support of 14 members was needed to have the no-confidence motion defeated. On 28th July, 1993, the no-confidence motion was lost, 251 members having voted in support and 265 against. Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailender Mahto, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (the JMM), and Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, Ram Sharan Yadav, Roshan Lal, Anadicharan Das, Abhay Pratap Singh and Haji Gulam Mohammed, members of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the Janata Dal, Ajit Singh group (the J.D., A.S.), voted against the no-confidence motion. Ajit Singh, a member of the Lok Sabha owing allegiance to the J.D., A.S., abstained from voting thereon.2. It is the respondents, case that the above named members agreed to and did receive bribes, to the giving of which P.V. Narasimha Rao, M.P. and Prime Minist...
Tag this Judgment!