Us Supreme Court Court February 1996 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.
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Vs. Epstein
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-1996
Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Epstein - 516 U.S. 367 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD., ET AL. v. EPSTEIN ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1809. Argued November 27, 1995-Decided February 27, 1996 A tender offer resulting in petitioner Matsushita Electric Industrial Coo's acquisition of MCA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, precipitated two lawsuits on behalf of MCA's stockholders. While the first, a Delaware class action based purely on state-law claims, was pending, the second suit was filed in a California federal court, alleging that Matsushita's tender offer violated certain Securities and Exchange Commission Rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Section 27 of that Act confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the federal courts in such suits. Matsushita prevailed in the federal case, and while that judgment was on appeal, the parties to the state...
Behrens Vs. Pelletier
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-1996
Behrens v. Pelletier - 516 U.S. 299 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus BEHRENS v. PELLETIER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1244. Argued November 7, 1995-Decided February 21, 1996 Respondent was fired as provisional managing officer of Pioneer Savings and Loan Association after petitioner, the federal official responsible for monitoring Pioneer's operations, recommended such action because respondent was under investigation for potential misconduct relating to the collapse of another financial institution. Respondent filed this suit, seeking, inter alia, damages for alleged constitutional wrongs under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 . In partially denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the Bivens claims, the District Court rejected petitioner's asserted defense of qualified immunity from suit. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appealable "final"...
Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. Vs. Fcc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-1996
Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC - 518 U.S. 727 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 95-124. Argued February 21, 1996-Decided June 28,1996* These cases involve three sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Act), as implemented by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. Both 10(a) of the Act-which applies to "leased access channels" reserved under federal law for commercial lease by parties unaffiliated with the cable television system operator-and 10(c)-which regulates "public access channels" required by local governments for public, educational, and governmental programming-essentially permit the operator to allow or prohibit "programming" that it "reasonably believes ... depicts sexual ... activi...
Peacock Vs. Thomas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-1996
Peacock v. Thomas - 516 U.S. 349 (1996) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus PEACOCK v. THOMAS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1453. Argued November 6, 1995-Decided February 21, 1996 Respondent Thomas filed an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action against his former employer, Tru-Tech, Inc., and petitioner Peacock, a Tru-Tech officer and shareholder, alleging that they had breached their fiduciary duties to the class in administering Tru-Tech's pension benefits plan, and seeking benefits due under the plan. The District Court entered a money judgment against Tru-Tech upon finding that it had breached its fiduciary duties, but ruled that Peacock was not a fiduciary. Thomas did not execute the judgment while the case was on appeal and, during that time, Peacock settled many of Tru-Tech's accounts with favored creditors, including himself. Mter the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and attempts to collect i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›