Us Supreme Court Court June 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.
Miller Vs. Johnson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Miller v. Johnson - 515 U.S. 900 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus MILLER ET AL. v. JOHNSON ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA No. 94-631. Argued April 19, 1995-Decided June 29, 1995* In Shaw v. Reno, 509 U. S. 630 , this Court articulated the equal protection principles that govern a State's drawing of congressional districts, noting that laws that explicitly distinguish between individuals on racial grounds fall within the core of the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition against race-based decisionmaking, that this prohibition extends to laws neutral on their face but unexplainable on grounds other than race, and that redistricting legislation that is so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race demands the same strict scrutiny given to other state laws that classify citizens by race. Georgia's most recent congressional districting plan contains three majority-black districts and was a...
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. Vs. Pinette
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-29-1995
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette - 515 U.S. 753 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW AND ADVISORY BOARD ET AL. v. PINETTE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 94-780. Argued April 26, 1995-Decided June 29, 1995 Ohio law makes Capitol Square, the statehouse plaza in Columbus, a forum for discussion of public questions and for public activities, and gives petitioner Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board (Board) responsibility for regulating access to the square. To use the square, a group must simply fill out an official application form and meet several speechneutral criteria. Mter the Board denied, on Establishment Clause grounds, the application of respondent Ku Klux Klan to place an unattended cross on the square during the 1993 Christmas season, the Klan filed this suit. The District Court entered an injunction requiring issuance of the requested permit, and the Board permitted the Klan to ...
United States Vs. Aguilar
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
United States v. Aguilar - 515 U.S. 593 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. AGUILAR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 94-270. Argued March 20, 1995-Decided June 21, 1995 Respondent Aguilar, a United States District Judge, was convicted of illegally disclosing a wiretap in violation of 18 U. S. C. 2232(c), even though the authorization for the particular wiretap had expired before the disclosure was made. Because he lied to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents during a grand jury investigation, he also was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of justice under 1503. The Court of Appeals reversed both convictions, reasoning that Aguilar's conduct in each instance was not covered by the statutory language. Held: 1. Uttering false statements to an investigating agent who might or might not testify before a grand jury is not sufficient to make out a violation of 1503's prohibition of "endeav...
Florida Bar Vs. Went for It, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-21-1995
Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. - 515 U.S. 618 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 94-226. Argued January 11, 1995-Decided June 21, 1995 Respondent lawyer referral service and an individual Florida attorney filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging, as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Florida Bar (Bar) Rules prohibiting personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. The District Court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, relying on Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U. S. 350 , and subsequent cases. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on similar grounds. Held: In the circumstances presented here, the Bar Rules do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 622-635. (a) Bates and its progeny establi...
United States Vs. Gaudin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
United States v. Gaudin - 515 U.S. 506 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. GAUDIN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 94-514. Argued April 17, 1995-Decided June 19, 1995 Respondent was charged with violating 18 U. S. C. 1001 by making false statements on Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan documents. Mter instructing the jury that the Government had to prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statements were material to HUD's activities and decisions, the District Court added that the issue of materiality is a matter for the court to decide rather than the jury and that the statements in question were material. The jury convicted respondent, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that taking the question of materiality from the jury violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Held: The trial judge's refusal to submit the question of "materiality" to the jury was unconstitutional. Pp. 509-523. (a) Th...
SandIn Vs. Conner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
Sandin v. Conner - 515 U.S. 472 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus SANDIN, UNIT TEAM MANAGER, HALAWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY v. CONNER ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1911. Argued February 28, 1995-Decided June 19, 1995 In this suit, respondent Conner alleged that petitioner and other Hawaii prison officials deprived him of procedural due process when an adjustment committee refused to allow him to present witnesses during a disciplinary hearing and then sentenced him to segregation for misconduct. The District Court granted the officials summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Conner had a liberty interest in remaining free of disciplinary segregation and that there was a disputed question of fact whether he had received all of the process due under Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 . The court based its conclusion on a prison regulation instructing the committee to find guilt when a misconduct ...
Hurley Vs. Irish-american Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, I ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. - 515 U.S. 557 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus HURLEY ET AL. v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS No. 94-749. Argued April 25, 1995-Decided June 19, 1995 Petitioner South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, an unincorporated association of individuals elected from various veterans groups, was authorized by the city of Boston to organize and conduct the St. Patrick's Day-Evacuation Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the 1993 event to respondent GLIB, an organization formed for the purpose of marching in the parade in order to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals, to show that there are such individuals in the community, and to support the like men and women who sought to march in the New York St. Patrick's Day parade. GLIB and some of its ...
Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S. A. Vs. M/V Sky Reefer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer - 515 U.S. 528 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus VIMAR SEGUROS Y REASEGUROS, S. A. v. M/V SKY REEFER ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 94-623. Argued March 20, 1995-Decided June 19, 1995 Mter a New York fruit distributor's produce was damaged in transit from Morocco to Massachusetts aboard respondent vessel, which was owned by respondent Panamanian company and chartered to a Japanese carrier, petitioner insurer paid the distributor's claim, and they both sued respondents under the standard form bill of lading tendered to the distributor by its Moroccan supplier. Respondents moved to stay the action and compel arbitration in Tokyo under the bill of lading's foreign arbitration clause and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The District Court granted the motion, rejecting the argument of petitioner and the distributor that the arbitration clause was unenforceable under the FAA bec...
National Private Truck Council, Inc. Vs. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-19-1995
National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n - 515 U.S. 582 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA No. 94-688. Argued April 18, 1995-Decided June 19, 1995 In the Oklahoma state courts, petitioners successfully challenged certain state taxes as violating the "dormant" Commerce Clause. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered respondents to award refunds pursuant to state law, but declined to award declaratory or injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. 1983 or attorney's fees under 1988. The court reasoned that because adequate remedies existed under state law, the Tax Injunction Act would have precluded petitioners from seeking an injunction in federal court; although that Act does not apply to state courts, the Oklahoma Supreme Court invoked the principle of "intrastate uniformity" to conclude that petitioners were not entitled to injunctive or declarato...
Chandris, Inc. Vs. Latsis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-14-1995
Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis - 515 U.S. 347 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus CHANDRIS, INC., ET AL. v. LATSIS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 94-325. Argued February 21, 1995-Decided June 14, 1995 Respondent Latsis' duties as a superintendent engineer for petitioner Chandris, Inc., required him to take voyages on Chandris' ships. He lost substantial vision in one eye after a condition that he developed while on one of those voyages went untreated by a ship's doctor. Following his recuperation, he sailed to Germany on the S. S. Galileo and stayed with the ship while it was in drydock for refurbishment. Subsequently, he sued Chandris for damages for his eye injury under the Jones Act, which provides a negligence cause of action for "any seaman" injured "in the course of his employment." The District Court instructed the jury that Latsis was a "seaman" if he was permanently assigned to, or performed a substantial part of his work on, a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »