Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-23-2008
Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc. - 07-552 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO. V. APCC SERVICES, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO., L. P., etal. v . APCC SERVICES, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07552.Argued April 21, 2008Decided June 23, 2008 A payphone customer making a long-distance call with an access code or 1800 number issued by a long-distance carrier pays the carrier (which completes the call). The carrier then compensates the payphone operator (which connects the call to the carrier in the first place). The payphone operator can sue the long-distance carrier for any compensation that the carrier fails to pay for these dial-around calls. Many payphone operators assign their dial-around claims to billing and collection firms (aggregators) so that, in effect, these aggregators can bring suit on their behalf. A group of aggregato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-12-2008
Boumediene v. Bush - 06-1195 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOUMEDIENE etal. v . BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 061195.Argued December 5, 2007Decided June 12, 2008* In the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Congress empowered the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld , 542 U. S. 507 , 518, 588589, five Justices recognized that detaining individuals captured while fighting against the United States in Afghanistan for the duration of that conflict was a fundamental and accepted incident to war. Thereafter, the Defense Department established Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs) to determine whether individuals detained at the U. S. Naval Station at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-15-2008
MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue - 06-1413 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 MEADWESTVACO CORP. V. ILLINOIS DEPT. OFREVENUE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEADWESTVACO CORP., successor in interest to MEAD CORP. v . ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OFREVENUE etal. certiorari to the appellate court of illinois, first district No. 061413.Argued January 16, 2008Decided April 15, 2008 A State may tax an apportioned share of the value generated by a multistate enterprises intrastate and extrastate activities that form part of a unitary business. Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. , 528 U. S. 458 , 460. Illinois taxed a capital gain realized by Mead, an Ohio corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner, when Mead sold its Lexis business division. Mead paid the tax and sued in state court. The trial court found that Lexis and Mead were not unitary because they were not functionally integrated or centrally managed and enjoyed no economies of sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-21-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. For the sake of convenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No. ... of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 15729 of 2008) filed by J. Mitra & Co. Pvt. Ltd.3. This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005.4. Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date as the Appropriate Government may, by Notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Provision is also at times made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act. This is what has exactly happened in this case resulting into utter confusion with regard to pending FAO No. 293/06 filed by respondent No. 3 in the High Court under Section 116 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 26.3.99.5. Span Diagnostics Limited, respondent No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-16-2008
Baze v. Rees - 07-5439 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 BAZE V. REES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BAZE etal. v . REES, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, etal. certiorari to the supreme court of kentucky No. 075439.Argued January 7, 2008Decided April 16, 2008 Lethal injection is used for capital punishment by the Federal Government and 36 States, at least 30 of which (including Kentucky) use the same combination of three drugs:The first, sodium thiopental, induces unconsciousness when given in the specified amounts and thereby ensures that the prisoner does not experience any pain associated with the paralysis and cardiac arrest caused by the second and third drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride. Among other things, Kentuckys lethal injection protocol reserves to qualified personnel having at least one years professional experience the responsibility for inserting the intravenous (IV) catheters into the prisoner, leaving it to others to mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-25-2008
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker - 07-219 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EXXON SHIPPING CO. etal. v . BAKER etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 07219.Argued February 27, 2008Decided June 25, 2008 In 1989, petitioners (collectively, Exxon) supertanker grounded on a reef off Alaska, spilling millions of gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The accident occurred after the tankers captain, Joseph Hazelwoodwho had a history of alcohol abuse and whose blood still had a high alcohol level 11 hours after the spillinexplicably exited the bridge, leaving a tricky course correction to unlicensed subordinates. Exxon spent some $2.1 billion in cleanup efforts, pleaded guilty to criminal violations occasioning fines, settled a civil action by the United States and Alaska for at least $900 million, and paid another $303 million in voluntary payments to private parties. Othe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-25-2008
Medelln v. Texas - 06-984 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDELLIN v . TEXAS certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of texas No. 06984.Argued October 10, 2007Decided March 25, 2008 In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals ( Mex. v. U. S. ), 2004 I.C.J. 12 ( Avena ), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or Convention) by failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals, including petitioner Medelln, of their Vienna Convention rights. The ICJ found that those named individuals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their U. S. state-court convictions and sentences regardless of their failure to comply with generally applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions. In Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon , 548 U. S. 331 issued after Avena but involvin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-15-2008
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good - 07-562 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 ALTRIA GROUP, INC. V. GOOD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALTRIA GROUP, INC., etal. v . GOOD etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 07562.Argued October 6, 2008Decided December 15, 2008 Respondents, smokers of petitioners light cigarettes, filed suit, alleging that petitioners violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently advertising that their light cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine than regular brands. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, finding the state-law claim pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Labeling Act). The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empts respondents fraud claim. Held: Neither the Labeling Acts pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commissions actions in this field pre-empt respondents sta...
Tag this Judgment!