Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-23-1994
NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement Corp. of America - 511 U.S. 571 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. HEALTH CARE & RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1964. Argued February 22, 1994-Decided May 23, 1994 Employees are considered "supervisors," and thus are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. 152(3), if they have authority, requiring the use of independent judgment, to engage in one of 12 listed activities and they hold the authority "in the interest of the employer," 152(11). Petitioner National Labor Relations Board has stated that a nurse's supervisory activity incidental to the treatment of patients is not authority exercised in the interest of the employer. Respondent owns and operates a nursing home at which staff nursesincluding the four nurses involved in this case-are the senior ranking employees on duty most of the time, ensure adequa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-31-1994
Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital - 514 U.S. 87 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus SHALALA, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES v. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No.93-1251. Argued October 31, 1994-Decided March 6,1995 Mter the refinancing of its bonded debt resulted in a "defeasance" loss for accounting purposes, respondent health care provider (hereinafter Hospital) determined that it was entitled to Medicare reimbursement for part of that loss. Although the Hospital contended that it should receive its full reimbursement in the year of the refinancing, the fiscal intermediary agreed with petitioner Secretary of Health and Human Services that the loss had to be amortized over the life of the Hospital's old bonds in accord with an informal Medicare reimbursement guideline, PRM 233. The District Court ultimately sustained the Secretary's position, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Interpreting the Secr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-1994
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. - 510 U.S. 517 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 92-1750. Argued December 8, 1993-Decided March 1, 1994 Mter petitioner Fogerty's successful defense of a copyright infringement action filed against him by respondent Fantasy, Inc., the District Court denied his motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 17 U. S. C. 505, which provides in relevant part that in such an action "the court may ... award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." The Court of Appeals affirmed, declining to abandon its "dual" standard for awarding 505 fees-under which prevailing plaintiffs are generally awarded attorney's fees as a matter of course, while defendants must show that the original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith-in favor of the so-called "evenhanded" approach, in which no distinction is made between prevailing plaintiffs and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-22-1994
Shannon v. United States - 512 U.S. 573 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus SHANNON v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 92-8346. Argued March 22, 1994-Decided June 24,1994 In the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 (IDRA or Act), Congress made insanity an affirmative defense, created a special verdict of "not guilty only by reason of insanity" (NGI), and established a comprehensive civil commitment procedure. At his trial on a federal criminal charge, petitioner Shannon raised the insanity defense and asked the District Court to instruct the jury that an NGI verdict would result in his involuntary commitment. The court refused, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that, under its pre-IDRA precedent, juries were not to be instructed concerning the consequences of an insanity acquittal. Because there was no directive in the IDRA to the contrary, the court "adhere[d] to the establis...
Tag this Judgment!