Us Supreme Court Court April 2000 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.
Slack Vs. Mcdaniel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Slack v. McDaniel - 529 U.S. 473 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus SLACK v. McDANIEL, WARDEN, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6322. Argued October 4, 1999-Reargued March 29, 2000Decided April 26, 2000 Mter petitioner Slack was convicted of second-degree murder in Nevada and his direct appeal was unsuccessful, he filed, in 1991, a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U. S. C. 2254. Because he wished to litigate claims he had not yet presented to the Nevada courts, but could not do so under the rule requiring complete exhaustion of state remedies, see Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 , Slack filed a motion to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he returned to state court. The Federal District Court ordered the habeas petition dismissed without prejudice, granting Slack leave to file an application to renew upon exhausting state remedies. Mter unsuccessful state postconviction proceedings, Slack filed anew in the ...
Beck Vs. Prupis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
Beck v. Prupis - 529 U.S. 494 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus BECK v. PRUPIS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1480. Argued November 3, 1999-Decided April 26, 2000 The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) creates a civil cause of action for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962." 18 U. S. C. 1964(c). Subsection (d) of 1962 forbids "any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of [ 1962]." Petitioner is a former president, CEO, director, and shareholder of Southeastern Insurance Group (SIG). Respondents are former senior officers and directors of SIG who allegedly conspired to, and did, engage in acts of racketeering. Petitioner alleged that after he discovered respondents' unlawful conduct and contacted regulators, respondents orchestrated a scheme to remove him from the company. Petitioner sued responden...
Nelson Vs. Adams Usa, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc. - 529 U.S. 460 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus NELSON v. ADAMS USA, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT No. 99-502. Argued March 27, 2000-Decided April 25, 2000 Ohio Cellular Products Corporation (OCP) sued respondent Adams USA, Inc. (Adams), for patent infringement. The District Court dismissed OCP's claim and ordered OCP to pay Adams' costs and attorney fees. In awarding costs and fees, the court determined that petitioner Nelson, president and sole shareholder of OCP, had deceitfully withheld from the United States Patent and Trademark Office prior art that rendered OCP's patents invalid, and that this behavior constituted inequitable conduct chargeable to OCP. Fearing that OCP might be unable to pay the fee, Adams moved under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend its pleading to add Nelson, personally, as a party from whom fees could be collected. Adams also asked the court, u...
Edwards Vs. Carpenter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
Edwards v. Carpenter - 529 U.S. 446 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus EDWARDS, WARDEN v. CARPENTER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2060. Argued February 28, 2000-Decided April 25, 2000 Respondent pleaded guilty while maintaining his innocence to Ohio murder and robbery charges in exchange for the prosecutor's agreement that the plea could be withdrawn if the death penalty was imposed. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence of imprisonment, and he did not appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. Mter pursuing state postconviction relief pro se, respondent, represented by new counsel, petitioned the Ohio Court of Appeals to reopen his direct appeal, claiming that his original appellate counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and sentence. The court dismissed the application as untimely under Ohio Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(B), a...
Carter Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
Carter v. United States - 530 U.S. 255 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus CARTER v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 99-5716. Argued April 19, 2000-Decided June 12,2000 Having donned a ski mask and entered a bank, petitioner Carter confronted an exiting customer and pushed her back inside. She screamed, startling others in the bank. Undeterred, Carter ran inside and leaped over a counter and through one of the teller windows. A teller rushed into the manager's office. Meanwhile, Carter opened several teller drawers and emptied the money into a bag. Mter removing almost $16,000, he jumped back over the counter and fled. He was charged with violating 18 U. S. C. 2113(a), which punishes "[w]hoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes ... any ... thing of value [from a] bank." While not contesting the basic facts, Carter pleaded not guilty on the theory that he had not taken the bank's money "by force and violen...
Williams Vs. Taylor
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Williams v. Taylor - 529 U.S. 420 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6615. Argued February 28, 2000-Decided April 18, 2000 Mter petitioner was convicted of two capital murders and other crimes, he was sentenced to death. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed on direct appeal and later dismissed petitioner's state habeas corpus petition. He then sought federal habeas relief, requesting, among other things, an evidentiary hearing on three constitutional claims, which he had been unable to develop in the state-court proceedings. Those claims were that (1) the prosecution had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 , in failing to disclose a report of a pretrial psychiatric examination of Jeffrey Cruse, petitioner's accomplice and the Commonwealth's main witness against petitioner; (2) the trial was rendered unfair by the seating of a juror who at voir dire had not re...
Williams Vs. Taylor, Warden
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN - 529 U.S. 362 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus WILLIAMS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-8384. Argued October 4, 1999-Decided April 18, 2000 A Virginia jury convicted petitioner Williams of robbery and capital murder, and, after a sentencing hearing, found a probability of future dangerousness and unanimously fixed his punishment at death. Concluding that such punishment was "proper" and "just," the trial judge imposed the death sentence. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. In state habeas corpus proceedings, the same trial judge found, on the evidence adduced after hearings, that Williams' conviction was valid, but that his counsel's failure to discover and present significant mitigating evidence violated his right to the effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 . In rejecting the trial judge's recommendation that Williams be resentenced, th...
Miller Vs. French
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
Miller v. French - 530 U.S. 327 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus MILLER, SUPERINTENDENT, PENDLETON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL. v. FRENCH ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 99-224. Argued April 18, 2000-Decided June 19,2000* In 1975, prison inmates at Indiana's Pendleton Correctional Facility brought a class action, and the District Court issued an injunction, which remains in effect, to remedy violations of the Eighth Amendment regarding conditions of confinement. Congress subsequently enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), which, as relevant here, sets a standard for the entry and termination of prospective relief in civil actions challenging prison conditions. Specifically, 18 U. S. C. 3626(b)(2) provides that a defendant or intervenor may move to terminate prospective relief under an existing injunction that does not meet that standard; 3626(b)(3) provides that a court may not terminate such relief if ...
Harris Trust and Sav. Bank Vs. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Harris Trust and Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. - 530 U.S. 238 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus HARRIS TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE AMERITECH PENSION TRUST, ET AL. v. SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 99-579. Argued April 17, 2000-Decided June 12,2000 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) bars a fiduciary of an employee benefit plan from causing the plan to engage in certain prohibited transactions with a "party in interest," 406(a), defined to encompass entities that a fiduciary might be inclined to favor at the expense of the plan's beneficiaries, see 3(14). Section 406's prohibitions are subject to both statutory and regulatory exemptions. See 408(a), (b). The Ameritech Pension Trust (APT), an ERISA pension plan, allegedly entered into a transaction prohibited by 406(a) and not exempted by 408 with respondent Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (Salomon), a n...
Bond Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-17-2000
Bond v. United States - 529 U.S. 334 (2000) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 Syllabus BOND v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-9349. Argued February 29, 2000-Decided April 17, 2000 Border Patrol Agent Cantu boarded a bus in Texas to check the immigration status of its passengers. As he walked off the bus, he squeezed the soft luggage which passengers had placed in the overhead storage space. He squeezed a canvas bag above petitioner's seat and noticed that it contained a "brick-like" object. Mter petitioner admitted owning the bag and consented to its search, Agent Cantu discovered a "brick" of methamphetamine. Petitioner was indicted on federal drug charges. He moved to suppress the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu conducted an illegal search of his bag. The District Court denied the motion and found petitioner guilty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion, holding that Agent Cantu's manipulation of the bag was not a s...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »