Us Supreme Court Court April 1995 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.
New York State Conference of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans Vs. Trav ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
New York State Conference of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co. - 514 U.S. 645 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE OF BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD PLANS ET AL. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 93-1408. Argued January 18, 1995-Decided April 26, 1995* A New York statute requires hospitals to collect surcharges from patients covered by a commercial insurer but not from patients insured by a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan, and also subjects certain health maintenance organizations (HMO's) to surcharges. Several commercial insurers and their trade associations filed actions against state officials, claiming that 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)-under which state laws that "relate to" any covered employee benefit plan are superseded-pre-empts the imposition of surcharges on bills of patients whose commercial insurance coverage is purc...
United States Vs. Lopez
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-1995
United States v. Lopez - 514 U.S. 549 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1260. Argued November 8, 1994-Decided April 26, 1995 Mter respondent, then a 12th-grade student, carried a concealed handgun into his high school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. 922(q)(I)(A). The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that 922(q) is a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that, in light of what it characterized as insufficient congressional findings and legislative history, 922(q) is invalid as beyond Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. Held: The Act exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause authority. ...
North Star Steel Co. Vs. Thomas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas - 515 U.S. 29 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NORTH STAR STEEL CO. v. THOMAS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 94-834. Argued April 25, 1995-Decided May 30,1995* Respondents filed separate claims under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), which authorizes a civil enforcement action by aggrieved employees or their union against a covered employer who fails to give 60 days notice of a plant closing or mass layoff, but provides no limitations period for such an action. In rejecting petitioner employer's contention that the statute of limitations had run, the District Court in Crown Cork held that the source of the limitations period for WARN suits is state law and that respondent union's suit was timely under any of the arguably applicable Pennsylvania statutes. In North Star, however, another District Court granted summary judgment for petitioner employer, holdi...
United States Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
United States v. Williams - 514 U.S. 527 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 94-395. Argued February 22, 1995-Decided April 25, 1995 The Government assessed a tax against Jerrold Rabin and placed a lien on all of his property, including his interest in the home he jointly owned with respondent Lori Williams, his then-wife. Before the Government recorded its lien, Rabin transferred his interest in the home to Williams, as part of a division of assets in contemplation of divorce. Although Williams was not personally liable for the tax, she paid it under protest to remove the lien and sued for a refund under 28 U. S. C. 1346(a)(1), which waives the Government's sovereign immunity from suit in "[a]ny civil action ... for the recovery of any internal-revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected." The Government responded that it was irrelevant whet...
California Dept. of Corrections Vs. Morales
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-25-1995
California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales - 514 U.S. 499 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL. v. MORALES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1462. Argued January 9, 1995-Decided April 25, 1995 Respondent was sentenced to 15 years to life for the 1980 murder of his wife and became eligible for parole in 1990. As required by California law, the Board of Prison Terms (Board) held a hearing in 1989, at which time it found respondent unsuitable for parole for numerous reasons, including the fact that he had committed his crime while on parole for an earlier murder. Respondent would have been entitled to subsequent suitability hearings annually under the law in place when he murdered his wife. The law was amended in 1981, however, to allow the Board to defer subsequent hearings for up to three years for a prisoner convicted of more than one offense involving the taking of a life, if the Board finds ...
Reno Vs. Koray
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Reno v. Koray - 515 U.S. 50 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. KORAY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 94-790. Argued April 24, 1995-Decided June 5,1995 Under 18 U. S. C. 3585(b), a defendant generally must "be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences." Before respondent's federal sentence commenced, he was "released" on bail pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 and ordered confined to a community treatment center. Mter his prison sentence began, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) relied on its established policy in refusing to credit toward his sentence the time he had spent at the treatment center. He exhausted his administrative remedies and then filed a federal habeas corpus petition. A District Court denied his petition on the ground that his stay at the center was not "official detention" under ...
Garlotte Vs. Fordice
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-24-1995
Garlotte v. Fordice - 515 U.S. 39 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus GARLOTTE v. FORDICE, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 94-6790. Argued April 24, 1995-Decided May 30,1995 A Mississippi trial court ordered that petitioner Garlotte serve, consecutively, a 3-year prison sentence on a marijuana conviction, followed by concurrent life sentences on two murder convictions. State law required Garlotte to serve at least 10 months on the first sentence and 10 years on the concurrent sentences. Garlotte unsuccessfully sought state postconviction collateral relief on the marijuana conviction. By the time those proceedings ended, he had completed the period of incarceration set for the marijuana offense, and had commenced serving the life sentences. The Federal District Court denied his subsequent federal habeas petition on the merits, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. The Court of ...
United States Vs. Hays
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
United States v. Hays - 515 U.S. 737 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. HAYS ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA No. 94-558. Argued April 19, 1995-Decided June 29,1995* Appellees claim in this litigation that Louisiana's congressional redistricting plan (Act 1) is a racial gerrymander that violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. While their claim's primary focus is District 4, a majority-minority district, appellees live in District 5. The District Court invalidated Act 1, and the State and the United States, which had precleared Act 1 pursuant to its authority under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appealed directly to this Court. Held: Appellees lack standing to challenge Act 1. This Court has recognized that a generalized grievance against allegedly illegal governmental conduct is insufficient to provide standing, see, e. g., Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for ...
Celotex Corp. Vs. Edwards
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards - 514 U.S. 300 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CELOTEX CORP. v. EDWARDS ET ux. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1504. Argued December 6, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a judgment in favor of respondents and against petitioner Celotex Corp. To stay execution of the judgment pending appeal, petitioner posted a supersedeas bond, with an insurance company (Northbrook) serving as surety. Mter the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment, Celotex filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida. Exercising its equitable powers under 11 U. S. C. 105(a), the Bankruptcy Court issued an injunction, which, in pertinent part, prohibited judgment creditors from proceeding against sureties without the Bankruptcy Court's permission. Respondents thereafter filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedu...
RubIn Vs. Coors Brewing Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-1995
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. - 514 U.S. 476 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING CO. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No.93-1631. Argued November 30, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 Because 5(e)(2) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAAA or Act), 27 U. S. C. 205(e)(2), prohibits beer labels from displaying alcohol content, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) rejected respondent brewer's application for approval of proposed labels that disclosed such content. Respondent filed suit for relief on the ground that the relevant provisions of the Act violated the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech. The Government argued that the labeling ban was necessary to suppress the threat of "strength wars" among brewers, who, without the regulation, would seek to compete in the marketplace based on the potency of their beer. The District Court invalidated the labeling...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »