Us Supreme Court Court June 1998 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.
WisconsIn Dept. of Corrections Vs. Schacht
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-22-1998
Wisconsin Dept. of Corrections v. Schacht - 524 U.S. 381 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL. v. SCHACHT CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No.97-461. Argued April 20, 1998-Decided June 22, 1998 Respondent Schacht filed a state-court suit against the defendants (petitioners here), the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and several of its employees, both in their "personal" and in their "official" capacities, alleging that his dismissal from his prison guard position violated the Federal Constitution and federal civil rights laws. The defendants removed the case to federal court and then filed an answer raising the "defense" that the Eleventh Amendment doctrine of sovereign immunity barred the claims against the Department and its employees in their official capacity. The District Court granted the individual defendants summary judgment on the "personal capacity" claims and dismissed the claims agai...
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections Vs. Yeskey
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey - 524 U.S. 206 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL. v. YESKEY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 97-634. Argued April 28, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 Respondent Yeskey was sentenced to 18 to 36 months in a Pennsylvania correctional facility, but was recommended for placement in a Motivational Boot Camp for first-time offenders, the successful completion of which would have led to his parole in just six months. When he was refused admission because of his medical history of hypertension, he sued petitioners, Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections and several officials, alleging that the exclusion violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Title II of which prohibits a "public entity" from discriminating against a "qualified individual with a disability" on account of that disability, 42 U. S. C. 12132. The District Court dismissed fo...
Bryan Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Bryan v. United States - 524 U.S. 184 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus BRYAN v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 96-8422. Argued March 31, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) added 18 U. S. C. 924(a) (1)(D) to the Criminal Code to prohibit anyone from "willfully" violating, inter alia, 922(a)(I)(A), which forbids dealing in firearms without a federal license. The evidence at petitioner's unlicensed dealing trial was adequate to prove that he was dealing in firearms and that he knew his conduct was unlawful, but there was no evidence that he was aware of the federal licensing requirement. The trial judge refused to instruct the jury that he could be convicted only if he knew of the federal licensing requirement, instructing, instead, that a person acts "willfully" if he acts with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law, but that he need not be aware of the specific law that ...
Phillips Vs. Washington Legal Foundation
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation - 524 U.S. 156 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus PHILLIPS ET AL. v. WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1578. Argued January 13, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 Under Texas' Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) program, an attorney who receives client funds must place them in a separate, interest-bearing, federally authorized "NOW" account upon determining that the funds "could not reasonably be expected to earn interest for the client or [that] the interest which might be earned ... is not likely to be sufficient to offset the cost of establishing and maintaining the account, service charges, accounting costs and tax reporting costs which would be incurred in attempting to obtain the interest." IOLTA interest income is paid to the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation (TEAJF), which finances legal services for low-income persons. The Internal Revenue Servic...
Hohn Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Hohn v. United States - 524 U.S. 236 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus HOHN v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-8986. Argued March 3, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 Petitioner Hohn filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. 2255 to vacate his conviction for "use" of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, 18 U. S. C. 924(c)(I), claiming the evidence was insufficient to prove such "use" under this Court's intervening decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U. S. 137. While the motion was pending, Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 102 of which amends the statutory provision which had required state prisoners to obtain a certificate of probable cause before appealing the denial of a habeas petition. The amended provision specifies, inter alia, that an appeal may not be taken to a court of appeals from the final order in a 2255 proceeding, 2253(c)(I)(B), unless a circuit justi...
American Telephone and Telegraph Co. Vs. Central Office Telephone, Inc ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Central Office Telephone, Inc. - 524 U.S. 214 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. CENTRAL OFFICE TELEPHONE, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 97-679. Argued March 23, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 Respondent purchases "bulk" communications services from long-distance providers, such as petitioner AT&T, and resells them to its customers. Petitioner, as a common carrier under the Communications Act of 1934, must file with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "tariffs" containing all its "charges" for interstate services and all "classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such charges," 47 U. S. C. 203(a). A carrier may not "extend to any person any privileges or facilities in such communication, or employ or enforce any classifications, regulations, or practices affecting such charges, except as specified in such [tariff]." 203(c). The FCC req...
Forney Vs. Apfel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-15-1998
Forney v. Apfel - 524 U.S. 266 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus FORNEY v. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 97-5737. Argued April 22, 1998-Decided June 15, 1998 Petitioner Forney sought judicial review of a Social Security Administration final determination denying her disability benefits. When the District Court found that determination inadequately supported by the evidence and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U. S. C. 405(g), Forney appealed, contending that the agency's denial of benefits should be reversed outright. The Ninth Circuit, however, decided that she did not have the legal right to appeal. Before this Court, both Forney and the Solicitor General agree that she had the right to appeal, so an amicus has been appointed to defend the Ninth Circuit's decision. Held: A Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal o...
Geissal Vs. Moore Medical Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp. - 524 U.S. 74 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus GEISSAL, BENEFICIARY AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF GEISSAL, DECEASED v. MOORE MEDICAL CORP. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 97-689. Argued April 29, 1998-Decided June 8, 1998 The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to permit a beneficiary of an employer's group health plan to elect continuing coverage when he might otherwise lose that benefit because of a "qualifying event," such as the termination of employment. When respondent Moore Medical Corporation fired James Geissal, it told him that COBRA gave him the right to elect continuing coverage under Moore's health plan. He so elected, but six months later, Moore told him that he was not entitled to COBRA benefits because on his date of election he was already covered by a group plan through his wif...
United States Vs. Beggerly
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
United States v. Beggerly - 524 U.S. 38 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. BEGGERLY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-731. Argued April 27, 1998-Decided June 8, 1998 In 1979, the United States sued respondents and others to quiet title to land it sought for a federal park, contending that respondents did not have clear title because the Government had never patented the disputed land after acquiring it as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Government officials searched public land records during discovery, but reported to respondents that they found no proof of a grant to a private landowner. A 1982 settlement agreement quieted title in the Government's favor in return for a payment to respondents. In 1994, respondents sued to set aside the settlement agreement and obtain damages, claiming that they had evidence showing that the land had been granted to a private owner before the Louisiana Purchase, but the Distr...
Swidler and BerlIn Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-08-1998
Swidler & Berlin v. United States - 524 U.S. 399 (1998) OCTOBER TERM, 1997 Syllabus SWIDLER & BERLIN ET AL. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 97-1192. Argued June 8, 1998-Decided June 25,1998 When various investigations of the 1993 dismissal of White House Travel Office employees were beginning, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., met with petitioner Hamilton, an attorney at petitioner law firm, to seek legal representation. Hamilton took handwritten notes at their meeting. Nine days later, Foster committed suicide. Subsequently, a federal grand jury, at the Independent Counsel's request, issued subpoenas for, inter alia, the handwritten notes as part of an investigation into whether crimes were committed during the prior investigations into the firings. Petitioners moved to quash, arguing, among other things, that the notes were protected by the attorneyclient privilege. The District Cou...