Us Supreme Court Court June 1985 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Williamson Cty. Planning Vs. Hamilton Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank - 473 U.S. 172 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Williamson Cty. Planning v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City No. 84-4 Argued February 19, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 172 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus As required under Tennessee law, in 1973 respondent's predecessor in interest, a land developer, obtained petitioner Planning Commission's approval of a preliminary plat for development of a tract. The tract was to be developed in accord with the requirements of a county zoning ordinance for "cluster" development of residential areas and the Commission's implementing regulations. In 1977, the county zoning ordinance was changed so as to reduce the allowable density of dwelling units, but the Commission continued to apply the 1973 ordinance and regulations to the developer's tract. In 1979, however, the Co...
Walters Vs. Radiation Survivors
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...
Kentucky Vs. Graham
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Kentucky v. Graham - 473 U.S. 159 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985) No. 84-849 Argued April 16, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 159 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondents were arrested following the warrantless raid of a house in Kentucky by local and state police officers who were seeking a murder suspect. Claiming a deprivation of federal rights allegedly resulting from the police's use of excessive force and other constitutional violations accompanying the raid, respondents filed suit in Federal District Court under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking money damages. Among the named defendants were the Commissioner of the Kentucky State Police, "individually and as Commissioner," and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which was sued only for attorney's fees should respondents eventually prevail. The District Court, relying on the Eleventh Amendme...
Atascadero State Hosp. Vs. Scanlon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-1985
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon - 473 U.S. 234 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon No. 84-351 Argued March 25, 1985 Decided June 28, 1985 473 U.S. 234 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, who suffers from diabetes and has no sight in one eye, brought an action in Federal District Court against petitioners, alleging that petitioner California State Hospital denied him employment because of his physical handicap, in violation of 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and seeking compensatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief. Section 504 provides that no handicapped person shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be subjected to discrimination under any program receiving federal financial assistance under the Act. Section 505(a) makes available to any person aggrieved by any act of any recipient of federal assistance under the Act the reme...
Dowling Vs. United States
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 ...
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. Vs. Russell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell - 473 U.S. 134 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U.S. 134 (1985) Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Russell No. 84-9 Argued January 16, 1985 Reargued April 24, 1985 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 134 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent, a claims examiner for petitioner insurance company (petitioner), is a beneficiary under employee benefit plans administered by petitioner and governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). In May, 1979, respondent became disabled with a back ailment, and received plan benefits until October 17, 1979, when petitioner's disability committee terminated her benefits based on an orthopedic surgeon's report. Respondent then requested review of that decision, and on March 11, 1980, the plan administrator reinstated her benefits based on further medical reports, and retroactive benefits were p...
Pattern Makers Vs. Nlrb
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
Pattern Makers v. NLRB - 473 U.S. 95 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Pattern Makers v. NLRB, 473 U.S. 95 (1985) Pattern Makers' League of North America, AFL-CIO v. NLRB, No. 83-1894 Argued February 27, 1985 Reargued April 22, 1985 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 95 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioner national labor union's constitution provides that resignations from the union are not permitted during a strike. The union fined 10 members who, in violation of this provision, resigned during a strike by petitioner local unions and returned to work. Respondent employer representative thereafter filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (Board), claiming that such levying of fines constituted an unfair labor practice under 8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it an unfair labor practice for a union to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their 7 rights. The Board agreed, and the C...
United States Vs. Shearer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
United States v. Shearer - 473 U.S. 52 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52 (1985) United States v. Shearer No. 84-194 Argued February 25, 1985 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 52 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent's decedent, her son who was an Army private, was off duty at Fort Bliss and away from the base when he was kidnaped and murdered by another serviceman, who was convicted of the murder in a New Mexico court and who had also been convicted by a German court of manslaughter in 1977 while assigned to an Army base in Germany. Respondent brought this action against the Government in Federal District Court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (Act), claiming that the Army's negligence caused her son's death. Respondent alleged that, although the Army knew that the other serviceman was dangerous, it "negligently and carelessly failed to exert a reasonably sufficient control over" him, "failed t...
Marek Vs. Chesney
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 ...
NLRB Vs. Int'l Longshoremen's Assn.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-1985
NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's Assn. - 473 U.S. 61 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's Assn., 473 U.S. 61 (1985) National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Assn. No. 84-861 Argued April 23, 1985 Decided June 27, 1985 473 U.S. 61 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Rules on Containers (Rules) require that some cargo containers owned or leased by marine shipping companies that otherwise would be loaded or unloaded within the local port area (defined as anywhere within a 50-mile radius of the port) instead must be loaded or unloaded by longshoremen at the pier. These Rules were collectively bargained for by respondent union after the advent of "containerization" had drastically reduced the amount of longshoremen's on-pier work involved in cargo handling. In this case, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) held that the Rules constituted unlawful secondary activity under 8(b) (4)(B) and...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »