Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1985
Dept. of Inc. Maintenance v. Heckler - 471 U.S. 524 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Dept. of Inc. Maintenance v. Heckler, 471 U.S. 524 (1985) Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance v. Heckler No. 83-2136 Argued March 27, 1985 Decided May 20, 1985 471 U.S. 524 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus The Medicaid Act does not cover services performed for patients between the ages of 21 and 65 in an "institution for mental diseases" (IMD). In the absence of a statutory definition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) has promulgated a regulation defining an IMD as "an institution that is primarily engaged in providing diagnosis, treatment or care of persons with mental diseases," and providing that whether an institution is an IMD is determined by its "overall character." The Middletown Haven Rest Home in Connecticut is an "intermediate care facility" (ICF) that provides care for persons with mental illness as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1985
Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc. - 469 U.S. 189 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) Park N' Fly Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985) No. 83-1132 Argued October 9, 1984 Decided January 8, 1985 469 U.S. 189 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner operates long-term parking lots near airports in St. Louis Cleveland, Houston, Boston, Memphis, and San Francisco. In 1969, petitioner applied to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register a service mark consisting of the logo of an airplane and the words "Park 'N Fly." The registration issued in 1971, and nearly six years later petitioner filed an affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office to establish the incontestable status of the mark under 33(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), which provides that "registration shall be conclusive evidence of the registrant's ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-27-1985
Marek v. Chesney - 473 U.S. 1 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Marek v. Chesney, 473 U.S. 1 (1985) Marek v. Chesney No. 83-1437 Argued December 5, 1984 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner police officers, in answering a call on a domestic disturbance, shot and killed respondent's adult son. Respondent, in his own behalf and as administrator of his son's estate, filed suit against petitioners in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state tort law. Prior to trial, petitioners made a timely offer of settlement of $100,000, expressly including accrued costs and attorney's fees, but respondent did not accept the offer. The case went to trial and respondent was awarded $5,000 on the state law claim, $52,000 for the 1983 violation, and $3,000 in punitive damages. Respondent then filed a request for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides that a prevailing party in a 1983 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1985
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
Decided on : Jun-28-1985
Dowling v. United States - 473 U.S. 207 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) Dowling v. United States No. 84-589 Argued April 17, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 207 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Title 18 U.S.C. 2314 provides criminal penalties for any person who "transports in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud." Petitioner was convicted in Federal District Court of violating, inter alia, 2314, arising from the interstate transportation of "bootleg" phonorecords that were manufactured and distributed without the consent of the copyright owners of the musical compositions performed on the records. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: Section 2314 does not reach petitioner's conduct. Pp. 473 U. S. 213 -229. (a) The language of 2314 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-08-1985
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
Decided on : Jun-10-1985
Mountain States Tel. v. Santana Ana - 472 U.S. 237 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Mountain States Tel. v. Santana Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985) Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana No. 84-262 Argued February 20, 1985 Decided June 10, 1985 472 U.S. 237 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Pueblo Lands Act of 1924 was enacted to adjudicate and settle conflicting titles affecting lands claimed by respondent Pueblo Indian Tribe. Section 17 of the Act provides: "No right, title, or interest in or to the lands of the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico to which their title has not been extinguished as hereinbefore determined shall hereafter be acquired or initiated by virtue of the laws of the State of New Mexico, or in any other manner except as may hereafter be provided by Congress, and no sale, grant, lease of any character, or other conveyance of lands, or any title or claim thereto, made by any pueblo as a community...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-20-1985
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises - 471 U.S. 539 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises No. 83-1632 Argued November 6, 1984 Decided May 20, 1985 471 U.S. 539 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus In 1977, former President Ford contracted with petitioners to publish his as yet unwritten memoirs. The agreement gave petitioners the exclusive first serial right to license prepublication excerpts. Two years later, as the memoirs were nearing completion, petitioners, as the copyright holders, negotiated a prepublication licensing agreement with Time Magazine under which Time agreed to pay $25,000 ($12,500 in advance and the balance at publication) in exchange for the right to excerpt 7,500 words from Mr. Ford's account of his pardon of former President Nixon. Shortly before the Time article's scheduled release, an unauthorized source provided...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-09-1985
Alexander v. Choate - 469 U.S. 287 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) Alexander v. Choate No. 83-727 Argued October 1, 1984 Decided January 9, 1985 469 U.S. 287 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Faced with Medicaid costs beyond its budget, Tennessee proposed to reduce from 20 to 14 the number of annual inpatient hospital days that state Medicaid would pay hospitals on behalf of a Medicaid recipient. Before the reduction took effect, respondent Medicaid recipients brought a class action in Federal District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Respondents alleged that the proposed 14-day limitation would have a disproportionate effect on the handicapped, and hence was discriminatory in violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 -- which provides that no otherwise qualified handicapped person shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be subjected to discrimination under any program re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-30-1985
Reported in : AIR1986SC137; 1985(2)SCALE933; (1986)1SCC465; [1985]Supp3SCR264
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal has been filed pursuant to a certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court against its judgment and order dated December 16, 1969, in Appeal No. 165 of 1968. The certificate has been given by the High Court under Sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause (1) of Article 133 prior to the substitution of that clause by a new Clause (1) by the Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972. The grounds on which the certificate has been given are (i) that the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is not less than Rs. 20,000 and that as the judgment in appeal was one of affirmance, the appeal involves a substantial question of law, and (ii) that the case was a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. The High Court observed:The appeal raises a question of great importance in Trade Marks Law, that is to say whether a proprietor of a trade mark who intends to use it solely by a registered user is ent...
Tag this Judgment!