Court : US Supreme Court
Furman v. Georgia - 408 U.S. 238 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Furman v. Georgia No. 69-5003 Argued January 17, 1972 Decided June 29, 1972 * 408 U.S. 238 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. No. 69-5003, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.D.2d 628; No. 69-5030, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501; No. 69-5031, 447 S.W.2d 932, reversed and remanded. Page 408 U. S. 239 PER CURIAM. Petitioner in No. 69-5003 was convicted of murder in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1005 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). Petitioner in No. 69-5030 was convicted of rape in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1302 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501 (1969). Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FERC v. Mississippi - 456 U.S. 742 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982) FERC v. Mississippi No. 80-1749 Argued January 19, 1982 Decided June 1, 1982 456 U.S. 742 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) was enacted as part of a legislative package designed to combat the nationwide energy crisis. To further this effort, Titles I and III of PURPA direct state utility regulatory commissions and nonregulated utilities to "consider" the adoption and implementation of specific "rate design" and regulatory standards, and require state commissions to follow certain notice and comment procedures when acting on proposed federal standards. Section 210 of PURPA's Title II seeks to encourage the development of cogeneration and small power facilities, and directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in consultation with state regulator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Baze v. Rees - 07-5439 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 BAZE V. REES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BAZE etal. v . REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, etal. certiorari to the supreme court of kentucky No. 075439.Argued January 7, 2008Decided April 16, 2008 Lethal injection is used for capital punishment by the Federal Government and 36 States, at least 30 of which (including Kentucky) use the same combination of three drugs:The first, sodium thiopental, induces unconsciousness when given in the specified amounts and thereby ensures that the prisoner does not experience any pain associated with the paralysis and cardiac arrest caused by the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. Among other things, Kentuckys lethal injection protocol reserves to qualified personnel having at least one years professional experience the responsibility for inserting the intravenous (IV) catheters into the prisoner, leaving it to others to mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Corley v. United States - 07-10441 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 CORLEY V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CORLEY v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 0710441.Argued January 21, 2009Decided April 6, 2009 McNabb v. United States , 318 U. S. 332 , and Mallory v. United States , 354 U. S. 449 , generally rende[r] inadmissible confessions made during periods of detention that violat[e] the prompt presentment requirement of [Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure] 5(a). United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez , 511 U. S. 350 , 354. Rule 5(a), in turn, provides that a person making an arrest must take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge . Congress enacted 18 U. S.C. 3501 in response to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 , and some applications of the McNabb-Mallory rule. In an attempt to eliminate Miranda , 3501(a) provides that a confession shall be admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Stevens - 08-769 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 UNITED STATES V. STEVENS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . STEVENS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 08769.Argued October 6, 2009Decided April 20, 2010 Congress enacted 18 U. S.C. 48 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. The statute addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct. It applies to any visual or auditory depiction in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed, if that conduct violates federal or state law where the creation, sale, or possession takes place, 48(c)(1). Another clause exempts depictions with serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value. 48(b). The legislative background of 48 focused primarily on crush videos, which feature the torture and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 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 KIRTSAENG, dba BLUECHRISTINE99 v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 11697.Argued October 29, 2012Decided March 19, 2013 The exclusive rights that a copyright owner has to distribute copies ... of [a] copyrighted work, 17 U.S.C. 106(3), are qualified by the application of several limitations set out in 107 through 122, including the first sale doctrine, which provides that the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title ... is entitled, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Breininger v. SMW Int'l - 493 U.S. 67 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Breininger v. SMW Int'l, 493 U.S. 67 (1989) Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 6 No. 88-124 Argued Oct. 10, 1989 Decided Dec. 5, 1989 493 U.S. 67 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Pursuant to a multi-employer collective bargaining agreement, respondent union operates a hiring hall through which it refers both members and nonmembers for work at the request of employers. The hiring hall is "nonexclusive," in that workers are free to seek employment through other means, and employers are not restricted to hiring persons recommended by the union. Petitioner, a member of the union, filed suit alleging that respondent: (1) violated 101(a)(5) and 609 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) -- which forbid a union to "fine, suspend, expe[l] or otherwise discipline" a member for exercising LMRDA-secured ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carmell v. Texas - 529 U.S. 513 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus CARMELL v. TEXAS CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, SECOND DISTRICT No. 98-7540. Argued November 30, 1999-Decided May 1,2000 In 1996, petitioner was convicted on 15 counts of committing sexual offenses against his stepdaughter from 1991 to 1995, when she was 12 to 16 years old. Before September 1, 1993, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 38.07, specified that a victim's testimony about a sexual offense could not support a conviction unless corroborated by other evidence or the victim informed another person of the offense within six months of its occurrence, but that, if a victim was under 14 at the time of the offense, the victim's testimony alone could support a conviction. A 1993 amendment allowed the victim's testimony alone to support a conviction if the victim was under 18. The validity of four of petitioner's convictions depends on which version of the law applies to him. Before the Texas Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Horne v. Flores - 08-289 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HORNE V. FLORES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HORNE, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA PUBLICINSTRUCTION v . FLORES etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 08289.Argued April 20, 2009Decided June 25, 2009 A group of English Language-Learner (ELL) students and their parents (plaintiffs) filed a class action, alleging that Arizona, its State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (defendants) were providing inadequate ELL instruction in the Nogales Unified School District (Nogales), in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), which requires States to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers in schools, 20 U. S.C. 1703(f). In 2000, the Federal District Court entered a declaratory judgment, finding an EEOA violation in Nogales because the amount of funding the State allocated for the special needs of ELL students (ELL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Harbison v. Bell - 07-8521 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HARBISON V. BELL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HARBISON v . BELL, WARDEN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 078521.Argued January 12, 2009Decided April 1, 2009 After the Tennessee state courts rejected petitioner Harbisons conviction and death sentence challenges, the Federal District Court appointed a federal public defender to represent him in filing a habeas petition under 28 U. S.C. 2254. That petition was denied. Harbison then sought appointment of counsel for state clemency proceedings. Because Tennessee law no longer authorizes the appointment of state public defenders as clemency counsel, his federal counsel moved to expand the scope of her representation to include the state proceedings. In denying the motion, the District Court relied on Circuit precedent construing 18 U. S.C. 3599, which provides for the appointment of federal counsel. The Sixth Circuit affir...
Tag this Judgment!