Court : US Supreme Court
Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn. v. McNary - 454 U.S. 100 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100 (1981) Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn. v. McNary No. 80-427 Argued October 5, 1981 Decided December 1, 1981 454 U.S. 100 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Held: The principle of comity bars taxpayers' damages actions brought in federal courts under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system. Because the principle of comity bars federal courts from granting damages relief in such cases, it is not necessary to decide whether the Tax Injunction Act, standing alone, would bar such actions. Pp. 454 U. S. 107 -117. (a) Prior to enactment in 1937 of the Tax Injunction Act -- which prohibits district courts from enjoining, suspending, or restraining the assessment, levy, or collection of any state tax where a plain, speedy, and e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Scindia Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. v. Santos - 451 U.S. 156 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Scindia Steam Nav. Co., Ltd. v. Santos, 451 U.S. 156 (1981) Scindia Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. v. Santos No. 79-512 Argued December 1, 1980 Decided April 21, 1981 451 U.S. 156 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent longshoreman, an employee of respondent stevedore who was engaged by petitioner shipowner to load its vessel, was injured while working in the ship's hold when he was struck by cargo that fell from a pallet being held in suspension by a winch that was part of the ship's gear and was being operated by another longshoreman. The winch's braking mechanism allegedly had been malfunctioning for two days preceding the day of the accident, but there was a dispute as to whether the cargo fell because the suspended pallet was swinging back and forth or because the braking mechanism slipped while the pallet was suspended, and as to whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Arizona v. Manypenny - 451 U.S. 232 (1981) U.S. Supreme Court Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232 (1981) Arizona v. Manypenny No. 79-621 Argued November 10, 1980 Decided April 21, 1981 451 U.S. 232 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent was indicted in an Arizona state court for the commission of a state crime. Because the charge arose from an act committed while he was on duty as a federal Border Patrol Agent, respondent, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1), removed the case to Federal District Court. After a jury trial, a guilty verdict was returned, but ultimately the District Court sua sponte concluded that respondent had a valid immunity defense, and entered a judgment of acquittal. The State appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding, inter alia, that a criminal proceeding removed to federal court under 1442(a)(1) arises under federal law, and accordingly is controlled...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan - 458 U.S. 718 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan No. 81-406 Argued March 22, 1982 Decided July 1, 1982 458 U.S. 718 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Held: The policy of petitioner Mississippi University for Women (MUW), a state-supported university which has from its inception limited its enrollment to women, of denying otherwise qualified males (such as respondent) the right to enroll for credit in its School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 458 U. S. 723 -733. (a) The party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies individuals on the basis of their gender must carry the burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the classification. Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U. S. 455 , 450 U. S. 461 ; Personnel Administrator of Mass. v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Merrill Lynch v. Curran - 456 U.S. 353 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Merrill Lynch v. Curran, 456 U.S. 353 (1982) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran No. 80-203 Argued November 2, 1981 Decided May 3, 1982 * 456 U.S. 353 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which regulates commodity futures trading, was substantially amended by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974. Among other things, the Commodity Futures Exchange Commission was created to assume the regulatory and enforcement powers previously exercised by the Secretary of Agriculture and certain additional powers, and that Commission was authorized to grant reparations to any person complaining of a violation of the CEA or its implementing regulations committed by any futures commission merchant, floor broker, commodity trading adviser, or commodity pool operator. But the 1974 Act, like the original legislation and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Guardians Assn. v. Civil Svc. Comm'n - 463 U.S. 582 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Guardians Assn. v. Civil Svc. Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582 (1983) Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission of the City of New York No. 81-431 Argued November 1, 1982 Decided July 1, 1983 463 U.S. 582 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner black and Hispanic police officers were appointed to the New York City Police Department upon achieving passing scores on the examinations administered to make entry-level appointments. Since appointments were made in order of test scores, however, the examinations caused blacks and Hispanics to be hired later than similarly situated whites, which lessened petitioner officers' seniority and related benefits. Accordingly, when the Department subsequently laid off police officers on a "last-hired, first-fired" basis, those officers who had achieved the lowest scores were laid off first, and petitioner officers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Bearden v. Georgia - 461 U.S. 660 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) Bearden v. Georgia No. 81-6633 Argued January 11, 1983 Decided May 24, 1983 461 U.S. 660 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA Syllabus Petitioner pleaded guilty in a Georgia trial court to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property, but the court, pursuant to the Georgia First Offender's Act, did not enter a judgment of guilt, and sentenced petitioner to probation on the condition that he pay a $500 fine and $250 in restitution, with $100 payable that day, $100 the next day, and the $550 balance within four months. Petitioner borrowed money and paid the first $200, but about a month later he was laid off from his job, and, despite repeated efforts, was unable to find other work. Shortly before the $550 balance became due, he notified the probation office that his payment was going to be late. Thereafter, the State filed a petition to revoke petitioner's probation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Herman & MacLean & Huddleston - 459 U.S. 375 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Herman & MacLean & Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375 (1983) Herman & MacLean & Huddleston No. 81-680 Argued November 9, 1982 Decided January 24, 1983 * 459 U.S. 375 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Alleging that they were defrauded by misrepresentations in a registration statement and prospectus for certain securities, purchasers of such securities brought a class action in Federal District Court against most of the participants in the offering, seeking recovery under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), which makes it unlawful for "any" person to use "any" manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in the purchase or sale of "any" security. The trial judge instructed the jury to determine whether the plaintiffs had proved their cause of action by a preponderance of the evidence, and judgment was entered on the basis of a jury verdict in pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Gouveia - 467 U.S. 180 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180 (1984) United States v. Gouveia No. 83-128 Argued March 20, 1984 Decided May 29, 1984 467 U.S. 180 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Four of the respondents, who were all inmates in a federal prison, were placed in administrative detention in individual cells during the investigation of the 1978 murder of a fellow inmate. They remained in administrative detention without appointed counsel for approximately 19 months before their indictment on federal criminal charges and their arraignment in Federal District Court, when counsel was appointed for them. The District Court denied their motion to dismiss the indictment on the asserted ground that their administrative confinement without appointed counsel violated their Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and they were ultimately convicted of murder. The other two respondents were p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc. - 473 U.S. 479 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc. No. 84-648 Argued April 17, 1985 Decided July 1, 1985 473 U.S. 479 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, which is directed at "racketeering activity" -- defined in 1961(1) to encompass, inter alia, acts "indictable" under specific federal criminal provisions, including mail and wire fraud -- provides in 1964(c) for a private civil action to recover treble damages by any person injured in his business or property "by reason of a violation of section 1962." Section 1962(c) prohibits conducting or participating in the conduct of an enterprise "through a pattern of racketeering activity." Petitioner corporation, which had entered into a joint business venture with respondent compan...
Tag this Judgment!