Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Albertini - 472 U.S. 675 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675 (1985) United States v. Albertini No. 83-1624 Argued April 15, 1985 Decided June 24, 1985 472 U.S. 675 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. 1382 makes it unlawful to reenter a military base after having been "ordered not to reenter by any officer in command or charge thereof." In 1972, respondent received from the commanding officer of Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii a letter (bar letter) forbidding him to reenter the base without written permission from the commanding officer or his designate. The letter was issued after respondent and a companion entered the base and destroyed Government property. In 1981, respondent, with some friends, entered Hickam again during the base's annual open house for Armed Forces Day. Respondent's companions engaged in a peaceful demonstration criticizing the nuclear arms race...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing - 472 U.S. 585 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Aspen Skiing v. Aspen Highlands Skiing, 472 U.S. 585 (1985) Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. No. 84-510 Argued March 27, 1985 Decided June 19, 1985 472 U.S. 585 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, which owns one of the four major mountain facilities for downhill skiing at Aspen, Colo., filed a treble-damages action in Federal District Court in 1979 against petitioner, which owns the other three major facilities, alleging that petitioner had monopolized the market for downhill skiing services at Aspen in violation of 2 of the Sherman Act. The evidence showed that in earlier years, when there were only three major facilities operated by three independent companies (including both petitioner and respondent), each competitor offered both its own tickets for daily use of its mountain and an interchangeable 6-day all-Aspen ticket...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lindahl v. OPM - 470 U.S. 768 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Lindahl v. OPM, 470 U.S. 768 (1985) Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management No. 83-5954 Argued December 3, 1984 Decided March 20, 1985 470 U.S. 768 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Syllabus The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) "determine[s] questions of disability and dependency" in administering the Federal Government's disability retirement program. 5 U.S.C. 8347(c). Its "decisions . . . concerning these matters are final and conclusive, and are not subject to review," ibid., except to the extent that administrative review by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is provided by 8347(d)(1). In 1979, petitioner, who was employed as a security guard at a naval shipyard, was informed by the Navy that he was to be retired on disability resulting from acute and chronic bronchitis, and he did not contest this assessment. But several months after petitioner had been retir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oneida County v. Oneida Ind. Nation - 470 U.S. 226 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Oneida County v. Oneida Ind. Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) County of Oneida, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State No. 83-1065 Argued October 1, 1984 Decided March 4, 1985 * 470 U.S. 226 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent Indian Tribes (hereafter respondents) brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioner counties (hereafter petitioners), alleging that respondents' ancestors conveyed tribal land to New York State under a 1795 agreement that violated the Nonintercourse Act of 1793 -- which provided that no person or entity could purchase Indian land without the Federal Government's approval -- and that thus the transaction was void. Respondents sought damages representing the fair rental value, for a specified 2-year period, of that part of the land presently occupied by petitioners. The District Court found petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Louisiana - 470 U.S. 93 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93 (1985) United States v. Louisiana (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case) No. 9, Orig. Argued November 26, 1984 Decided February 26, 1985 470 U.S. 93 ON EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT OF SPECIAL MASTER Syllabus This case involves the issue whether Mississippi Sound, a body of water immediately south of the mainland of Alabama and Mississippi, consists of inland waters, so as to establish in those States, rather than in the United States, ownership of the lands submerged under the Sound. Following extended proceedings, the Special Master filed a Report in which he concluded, inter alia, that the whole of Mississippi Sound qualifies as a historic bay under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (Convention), and thus constitutes inland waters. Accordingly, he recommended that a decree be entered in favor of Alabama and Mississippi. The United States filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brandon v. Holt - 469 U.S. 464 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464 (1985) Brandon v. Holt No. 83-1622 Argued November 5, 1984 Decided January 21, 1985 469 U.S. 464 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In petitioners' action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, they alleged and proved that they had been assaulted by an officer of the Memphis Police Department who had a history of violent behavior that was well known within the Department. The court's judgment for petitioners, in addition to awarding compensatory and punitive damages against the officer, also awarded compensatory damages against the then Director of the Police Department "in his official capacity," the court having found that, although the Director had no actual knowledge of the officer's disciplinary record because of the Department's administrative policies, he should have known of the officer's dangerous propensities. The Court of A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder - 469 U.S. 153 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153 (1985) Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder No. 83-1153 Argued October 9, 1984 Decided January 8, 1985 469 U.S. 153 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus This case involves a controversy between petitioner publisher and respondent heirs of the author of the 1923 copyrighted song "Who's Sorry Now" over the division of royalty income that the sound recordings of the song have generated. In 1940, the author assigned his entire interest in all renewals of the copyright to petitioner in exchange for an advance royalty and petitioner's commitment to pay a cash royalty on sheet music and 50 percent of all net royalties that petitioner received for mechanical reproductions. In 1951, petitioner registered a renewal copyright. Thereafter, petitioner directly or through an agent issued over 400 licenses to record companies authorizing the use...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
City of Newport v. Iacobucci - 479 U.S. 92 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court City of Newport v. Iacobucci, 479 U.S. 92 (1986) City of Newport, Kentucky v. Iacobucci, dba Talk of the Town No. 86-139 Decided Nov. 17, 1986 479 U.S. 92 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The City Commission of Newport, Ky., enacted an ordinance prohibiting nude or nearly nude dancing in local establishments licensed to sell Page 479 U. S. 93 liquor for consumption on the premises. Respondents, proprietors of Newport liquor establishments that offered nude or nearly nude entertainment, filed an action in Federal District Court contending that the ordinance deprived them of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional under the doctrine of New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U. S. 714 , which upheld a state law imposing an almost identical prohibition on nu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cargill v. Monfort - 479 U.S. 104 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Cargill v. Monfort, 479 U.S. 104 (1986) Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. No. 85-473 Argued Oct. 6, 1986 Decided Dec. 9, 1986 479 U.S. 104 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 16 of the Clayton Act entitles a private party to sue for injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws." Respondent, the country's fifth-largest beef packer, brought an action in Federal District Court under 16 to enjoin the proposed merger of petitioner Excel Corporation, the second-largest packer, and Spencer Beef, the third-largest packer. Respondent alleged that it was threatened with a loss of profits by the possibility that Excel, after the merger, would lower its prices to a level at or above its costs in an attempt to increase its market share. During trial, Excel moved for dismissal on the ground that respondent had failed to all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lingle v. Norge Div., Magic Chef, Inc. - 486 U.S. 399 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Lingle v. Norge Div., Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399 (1988) Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc. No. 87-259 Argued March 23, 1988 Decided June 6, 1988 486 U.S. 399 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus After petitioner notified her employer (respondent) that she had been injured in the course of her employment and requested compensation for her medical expenses pursuant to the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act, she was discharged for filing an allegedly false worker's compensation claim. The union representing petitioner filed a grievance pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement that protected employees from discharge except for "just" cause and that provided for arbitration of disputes between the employer and any employee concerning the effect or interpretation of the agreement. While arbitration was proceeding, petitioner filed a retal...
Tag this Judgment!