Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-23-1999
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank - 527 U.S. 627 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK ETAL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 98-531. Argued April 20, 1999-Decided June 23, 1999 Mter the Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Act) amended the patent laws to expressly abrogate the States' sovereign immunity, respondent College Savings Bank filed a patent infringement suit against petitioner Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board (Florida Prepaid), a Florida state entity. When this Court decided Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 , Florida Prepaid moved to dismiss the action, claiming that the Act was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to use its Article I powers to abrogate state sovereign immunity. College Savings countered that Congress had properly exercised its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-07-1999
Amoco Production Co. v. Southern Ute Tribe - 526 U.S. 865 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus AMOCO PRODUCTION CO., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND THE CLASS IT REPRESENTS v. SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 98-830. Argued April 19, 1999-Decided June 7, 1999 Land patents issued to western settlers pursuant to the Coal Lands Acts of 1909 and 1910 conveyed the land and everything in it, except the "coal," which was reserved to the United States. Patented lands included reservation lands previously ceded by respondent Southern Ute Indian Tribe to the United States. In 1938, the United States restored to the Tribe, in trust, title to ceded reservation lands still owned by the Government, including the reserved coal in lands patented under the 1909 and 1910 Acts. These lands contain large quantities of coalbed methane gas (CEM gas) within the coal formations. At the time of the 1909 and 1910 Acts, such gas was consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-13-1999
California Dental Assn. v. FTC - 526 U.S. 756 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1625. Argued January 13, 1999-Decided May 24,1999 Petitioner California Dental Association (CDA), a nonprofit association of local dental societies to which about three-quarters of the State's dentists belong, provides desirable insurance and preferential financing arrangements for its members, and engages in lobbying, litigation, marketing, and public relations for members' benefit. Members agree to abide by the CDA's Code of Ethics, which, inter alia, prohibits false or misleading advertising. The CDA has issued interpretive advisory opinions and guidelines relating to advertising. Respondent Federal Trade Commission brought a complaint, alleging that the CDA violated 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (Act), 15 U. S. C. 45, in applying its guidelines so ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-22-1999
Olmstead v. L. C. - 527 U.S. 581 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus OLMSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ET AL. V. L. C., BY ZIMRING, GUARDIAN AD LITEM AND NEXT FRIEND, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 98-536. Argued April 21, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 In the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Congress described the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. 12101(a)(2), (5). Title II of the ADA, which proscribes discrimination in the provision of public services, specifies, inter alia, that no qualified individual with a disability shall, "by reason of such disability," be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, a public entity's services, programs, or activities. 12132. Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II's discrimination proscriptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-10-1999
Dickinson v. Zurko - 527 U.S. 150 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus DICKINSON, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. ZURKO ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 98-377. Argued March 24, 1999-Decided June 10, 1999 In reviewing a Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) decision to deny respondents' patent application, the Federal Circuit analyzed the PTO's factual finding using a "clearly erroneous" standard of review, which generally governs appellate review of district court findings of fact (court/court review), rather than the less stringent standards set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which permit a court to set aside agency findings of fact found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence (court/agency review), 5 U. S. C. 706. The court found the PTO's factual finding to be clearly erroneous. Held: The Federal Circuit must use the framework set forth in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-22-1999
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. - 527 U.S. 471 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus SUTTON ET AL. v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1943. Argued April 28, 1999-Decided June 22, 1999 Petitioners, severely myopic twin sisters, have uncorrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse, but with corrective measures, both function identically to individuals without similar impairments. They applied to respondent, a major commercial airline carrier, for employment as commercial airline pilots but were rejected because they did not meet respondent's minimum requirement of uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. Consequently, they filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibits covered employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their disabilities. Among other things, the ADA defines a "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-19-1999
American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan - 526 U.S. 40 (1999) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 Syllabus AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v. SULLIVAN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 97-2000. Argued January 19, 1999-Decided March 3,1999 Under Pennsylvania's Workers' Compensation Act, once an employer becomes liable for an employee's work-related injury-because liability either is not contested or is no longer at issue-the employer or its insurer must pay for all "reasonable" and "necessary" medical treatment. To assure that only medical expenses meeting these criteria are paid, and in an attempt to control costs, Pennsylvania has amended its workers' compensation system to provide that a self-insured employer or private insurer (collectively insurer) may withhold payment for disputed treatment pending an independent "utilization review," as to which, among other things, the insurer files a one-page request for review with the...
Tag this Judgment!