Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-26-1995
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. - 514 U.S. 645 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS ET AL. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 93-1408. Argued January 18, 1995-Decided April 26, 1995* A New York statute requires hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients insured by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, and also subjects certain health maintenance organizations (HMO's) to surcharges. Several commercial insurers and their trade associations filed actions against state officials, claiming that 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-under which state laws that "relate to" any covered employee benefit plan are superseded-pre-empts the imposition of surcharges on bills of patients whose commercial insurance coverage is purc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1995
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co. - 514 U.S. 159 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus QUALITEX CO. v. JACOBSON PRODUCTS CO., INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1577. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided March 28,1995 Petitioner Qualitex Company has for years colored the dry cleaning press pads it manufactures with a special shade of green gold. Mter respondent Jacobson Products (a Qualitex rival) began to use a similar shade on its own press pads, Qualitex registered its color as a trademark and added a trademark infringement count to the suit it had previously filed challenging Jacobson's use of the green-gold color. Qualitex won in the District Court, but the Ninth Circuit set aside the judgment on the infringement claim because, in its view, the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) does not permit registration of color alone as a trademark. Held: The Lanham Act permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-01-1995
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va. - 515 U.S. 819 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus ROSENBERGER ET AL. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-329. Argued March 1, 1995-Decided June 29,1995 Respondent University of Virginia, a state instrumentality, authorizes payments from its Student Activities Fund (SAF) to outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of publications issued by student groups called "Contracted Independent Organizations" (CIO's). The SAF receives its money from mandatory student fees and is designed to support a broad range of extracurricular student activities related to the University's educational purpose. CIO's must include in their dealings with third parties and in all written materials a disclaimer stating that they are independent of the University and that the University is not responsible for them. The University withheld autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-19-1995
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n - 514 U.S. 334 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus McINTYRE, EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No. 93-986. Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 Mter petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS" opposing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amendment rights were "reasonable" and "nondiscriminatory" and therefore valid. Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-26-1995
United States v. Lopez - 514 U.S. 549 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1260. Argued November 8, 1994-Decided April 26, 1995 Mter respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-21-1995
Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation - 513 U.S. 374 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus LEBRON v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 93-1525. Argued November 7, 1994-Decided February 21, 1995 Petitioner Lebron, who creates billboard displays that comment on public issues, filed suit claiming, inter alia, that respondent National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) had violated his First Amendment rights by rejecting a display for an Amtrak billboard because of its political nature. The District Court ruled that Amtrak, because of its close ties to the Federal Government, was a Government actor for First Amendment purposes, and that its rejection of the display was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that Amtrak was, by the terms of the legislation that created it, not a Government entity, and concluding that the Government was not so involved with Amtrak that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-02-1995
Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA No. 94-203. Argued October 2, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 Appellee Republican Party of Virginia (Party) invited all registered Virginia voters willing to declare their support for the Party's nominees at the 1994 general election to become delegates to a convention to nominate the Party's candidate for United States Senator upon payment of a registration fee. Appellants Bartholomew and Enderson desired, and were qualified, to become delegates, but were rejected because they refused to pay the fee; appellant Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee. Alleging, inter alia, that the imposition of the fee violated 5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appellants filed a complaint seeking an injunction preventing the Party from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-17-1995
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. - 515 U.S. 687 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus BABBITT, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, ET AL. v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 94-859. Argued April 17, 1995-Decided June 29,1995 As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to "take" endangered or threatened species, 9(a)(1)(B), and defines "take" to mean to "harass, harm, pursue," "wound," or "kill," 3(19). In 50 CFR 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word "take" to include habitat modification. Th...
Tag this Judgment!