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-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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : 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 : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-19-1985
Mitchell v. Forsyth - 472 U.S. 511 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) Mitchell v. Forsyth No. 84-335 Argued February 27, 1985 Decided June 19, 1985 472 U.S. 511 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR `THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus In 1970, petitioner, who was then the Attorney General, authorized a warrantless wiretap for the purpose of gathering intelligence regarding the activities of a radical group that had made tentative plans to take actions threatening the Nation's security. During the time the wiretap was installed, the Government intercepted three conversations between a member of the group and respondent. Thereafter, this Court in United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 ( Keith ), ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit warrantless wiretaps in cases involving domestic threats to the national security. Respondent then filed a damages action in Federal District Court against petitioner and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-04-1985
Oregon v. Elstad - 470 U.S. 298 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) Oregon v. Elstad No. 83-773 Argued October 3, 1984 Decided March 4, 1985 470 U.S. 298 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OREGON Syllabus When officers of the Polk County, Ore., Sheriff's Office picked up respondent at his home as a suspect in a burglary, he made an incriminating statement without having been given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 . After he was taken to the station house, and after he was advised of and waived his Miranda rights, respondent executed a written confession. In respondent's subsequent prosecution for burglary, the state trial court excluded from evidence his first statement because he had not been given Miranda warnings, but admitted the written confession. Respondent was convicted, but the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the confession should also have been excluded. The court concluded that, because...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-28-1985
Walters v. Radiation Survivors - 473 U.S. 305 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Walters v. Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985) Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors No. 84-571 Argued March 27, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 305 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Title 38 U.S.C. 3404(C) limits to $10 the fee that may be paid an attorney or agent who represents a veteran seeking benefits from the Veterans' Administration (VA) for service-connected death or disability. Appellees (two veterans' organizations, three individual veterans, and a veteran's widow) brought an action in Federal District Court claiming that the fee limitation denied them any realistic opportunity to obtain legal representation in presenting their claims to the VA, and hence violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and under the First Amendment. The District Court agreed and entered a nationwid...
Tag this Judgment!