Us Supreme Court Court January 2002 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.
Kansas Vs. Crane
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Kansas v. Crane - 534 U.S. 407 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus KANSAS v. CRANE CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS No. 00-957. Argued October 30, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002 In upholding the constitutionality of the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, this Court characterized a dangerous sexual offender's confinement as civil rather than criminal, Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346 , 369, and held that the confinement criterion embodied in the statute's words "mental abnormality or personality disorder" satisfied substantive due process, id., at 356, 360. Here, the Kansas District Court ordered the civil commitment of respondent Crane, a previously convicted sexual offender. In reversing, the State Supreme Court concluded that Hendricks requires a finding that the defendant cannot control his dangerous behavior-even if (as provided by Kansas law) problems of emotional, and not volitional, capacity prove the source of behavior warranting commitment. And the trial ...
Lee Vs. Kemna
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-22-2002
Lee v. Kemna - 534 U.S. 362 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus LEE v. KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT, CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6933. Argued October 29, 200l-Decided January 22, 2002 Petitioner Lee was tried for first-degree murder and a related crime in state court. His planned alibi defense-that he was in California with his family at the time of the murder-surfaced at each stage of the proceedings. Although Lee's mother, stepfather, and sister voluntarily came to Missouri to testify to his alibi, they left the courthouse without explanation at some point on the third day of trial, the day the defense case began. Lee's counsel moved for an overnight continuance to gain time to find the witnesses and enforce the subpoenas he had served on them. Neither the trial judge nor the prosecutor identified any procedural flaw in the motion's presentation or content. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that...
Kelly Vs. South Carolina
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Kelly v. South Carolina - 534 U.S. 246 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus KELLY v. SOUTH CAROLINA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA No. 00-9280. Argued November 26, 200l-Decided January 9, 2002 Mter convicting petitioner Kelly of murder and related crimes, a South Carolina jury was asked to determine whether any aggravating factors had been shown and, if so, to recommend a sentence of death or life imprisonment. At the sentencing proceeding, the prosecutor presented testimony that Kelly had made a knife while in prison and taken part in an escape attempt with plans to hold a female guard hostage. The prosecutor's cross-examination of a psychologist brought out evidence of Kelly's sadism at an early age and his current desires to kill anyone who irritated him. In his closing argument, the prosecutor spoke of Kelly as a "dangerous" "bloody" "butcher." Relying on the holding of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 -that when "a capital defendant's future dange...
Chao Vs. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
Chao v. Mallard Bay Drilling, Inc. - 534 U.S. 235 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR v. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-927. Argued October 31, 200l-Decided January 9, 2002 While Rig 52, respondent's oil and gas exploration barge, was drilling a well in Louisiana's territorial waters, an explosion on board killed or injured several workers. Pursuant to its statutory authority, the United States Coast Guard investigated the incident, but did not accuse respondent of violating any of its regulations. Indeed, the Coast Guard noted that the barge was an "uninspected vessel," see 46 U. S. C. § 2101(43), as opposed to an "inspected vessel" subject to comprehensive Coast Guard regulation, see § 3301. Subsequently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited respondent for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act ...
National Railroad Passenger Corporation Vs. Morgan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2002
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan - 536 U.S. 101 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. MORGAN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1614. Argued January 9, 2002-Decided June 10,2002 Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff "shall" file an employment discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) either 180 or 300 days after an "alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." 42 U. S. C. 2000e-5(e)(1). Respondent Morgan, a black male, filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC against petitioner National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), and cross-filed with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. He alleged that he had been subjected to discrete discriminatory and retaliatory acts and had experienced a racially hostile work environment throughout his employment. The EEOC issued a "Notice ...
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams - 534 U.S. 184 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING, KENTUCKY, INC. v. WILLIAMS CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1089. Argued November 7, 200l-Decided January 8, 2002 Claiming to be unable to perform her automobile assembly line job because she was disabled by carpal tunnel syndrome and related impairments, respondent sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U. S. C. 12112(b)(5)(A). The District Court granted petitioner summary judgment, holding that respondent's impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because it had not "substantially limit[ed]" any "major life activit[y]," 12102(2)(A), and that there was no evidence that respondent had had a record of a substantially limiting impairment or that petitioner had regarded her as...
Dusenbery Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Dusenbery v. United States - 534 U.S. 161 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus DUSENBERY v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6567. Argued October 29, 200l-Decided January 8, 2002 While petitioner was in prison on federal drug charges, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an administrative process to forfeit cash that officers seized when they executed a search warrant for the residence where petitioner was arrested. The statute in effect at the time required the agency, inter alia, to send written notice of the seizure and applicable forfeiture procedures to each party who appeared to have an interest in the property. 19 U. S. C. 1607(a). The FBI sent such notice by certified mail addressed to petitioner care of the federal correctional institution (FCI) where he was incarcerated; to the address of the residence where he was arrested; and to an address in the town where his mother lived. It received no response...
Edelman Vs. Lynchburg College
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Edelman v. Lynchburg College - 535 U.S. 106 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus EDELMAN v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1072. Argued January 8, 2002-Decided March 19,2002 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that a "charge" of employment discrimination be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "within [a specified number of] days after the alleged unlawful ... practice occurred," 706(e)(1), and that the charge "be in writing under oath or affirmation," 706(b). An EEOC regulation permits an otherwise timely filer to verify a charge after the time for filing has expired. Mter respondent Lynchburg College denied academic tenure to petitioner Edelman, he faxed a letter to the EEOC in November 1997, claiming that the College had subjected him to genderbased, national origin, and religious discrimination. Edelman made no oath or affirmation. The EEOC advised him to file a charge within...
Great-west Life and Annuity Ins. Co. Vs. Knudson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-08-2002
Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson - 534 U.S. 204 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE CO. ET AL. v. KNUDSON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1786. Argued October 1, 200l-Decided January 8, 2002 When respondent Janette Knudson was injured in a car accident, the health plan (Plan) of petitioner Earth Systems, Inc., the employer of Janette's then-husband, respondent Eric Knudson, covered $411,157.11 of her medical expenses, most of which was paid by petitioner GreatWest Life & Annuity Insurance Co. The Plan's reimbursement provision gives it the right to recover from a beneficiary any payment for benefits paid by the Plan that the beneficiary is entitled to recover from a third party. A separate agreement assigns Great-West the Plan's rights to any reimbursement provision claim. Mter the Knudsons filed a state-court tort action to recover from the manufacturer of their car and others...
Ragsdale Vs. Wolverine World Wide, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-07-2002
Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc. - 535 U.S. 81 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus RAGSDALE ET AL. v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6029. Argued January 7, 2002-Decided March 19,2002 The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA or Act) guarantees qualifying employees 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year and encourages businesses to adopt more generous policies. Respondent Wolverine World Wide, Inc., granted petitioner Ragsdale 30 weeks of medical leave under its more generous policy in 1996. It refused her request for additional leave or permission to work part time and terminated her when she did not return to work. She filed suit, alleging that 29 CFR 825.700(a), a Labor Department regulation, required Wolverine to grant her 12 additional weeks of leave because it had not informed her that the 30-week absence would count against her FMLA entitlement. The District Court granted Wolverine summary...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›