Us Supreme Court Court January 2001 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.
Glover Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Glover v. United States - 531 U.S. 198 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus GLOVER v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 99-8576. Argued November 27, 2000-Decided January 9, 2001 The probation office recommended that petitioner Glover's federal labor racketeering, money laundering, and tax evasion convictions be grouped under United States Sentencing Guidelines 3D1.2, which allows the grouping of counts involving substantially the same harm. The Government objected to grouping the money laundering counts with the others, and the trial court agreed. Glover's offense level was thus increased by two levels, resulting in an increased sentence of between 6 and 21 months. His counsel did not press the grouping issue in the trial court or raise it on appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed his conviction and sentence. Glover then filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence, arguing that his counsel's failure to pursue t...
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. Vs. Army Corps of Engineers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers - 531 U.S. 159 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN COOK COUNTY v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1178. Argued October 31, 2000-Decided January 9, 2001 Petitioner, a consortium of suburban Chicago municipalities, selected as a solid waste disposal site an abandoned sand and gravel pit with excavation trenches that had evolved into permanent and seasonal ponds. Because the operation called for filling in some of the ponds, petitioner contacted federal respondents, including the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), to determine if a landfill permit was required under 404(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which authorizes the Corps to issue permits allowing the discharge of dredged or fill material into "navigable waters." The CWA defines "navigable waters" as "the waters of the United States," 3...
Fiore Vs. White
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Fiore v. White - 531 U.S. 225 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus FIORE v. WHITE, WARDEN, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 98-942. Argued October 12, 1999-Question certified November 30, 1999-Decided January 9, 2001 Petitioner Fiore was convicted of violating a Pennsylvania statute prohibiting the operation of a hazardous waste facility without a permit, although the Commonwealth conceded that he in fact had a permit. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined review, but later reversed the conviction of his co-defendant, Scarpone, who had been convicted of the same crime at the same time. Mter the Pennsylvania courts denied him collateral relief, Fiore brought a federal habeas action. The District Court granted the writ, but the Third Circuit reversed, believing that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Scarpone's case, had announced a new rule of law, inapplicable to Fiore's already final conviction. This Court granted certiorari to...
Gitlitz Vs. Commissioner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2001
Gitlitz v. Commissioner - 531 U.S. 206 (2001) OCTOBER TERM, 2000 Syllabus GITLITZ ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1295. Argued October 2, 2000-Decided January 9, 2001 Shareholders of a corporation taxed under Subchapter S of the Internal Revenue Code may elect a "pass-through" taxation system, under which the corporation's profits pass through directly to its shareholders on a pro rata basis and are reported on the shareholders' individual tax returns. 26 U. S. C. 1366(a)(1)(A). To prevent double taxation of distributed income, shareholders may increase their corporate bases by certain items of income. 1367(a)(1)(A). Corporate losses and deductions are passed through in a similar manner, 1366(a)(1)(A), and the shareholders' bases in the S corporation's stock and debt are decreased accordingly, 1367(a)(2)(B), 1367(b)(2)(A). However, to the extent that such losses and deductions exceed a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›