Us Supreme Court Court November 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.
Chabad of Southern Ohio Vs. Cincinnati
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Chabad of Southern Ohio v. Cincinnati - 537 U.S. 1501 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus CHABAD OF SOUTHERN OHIO ET AL. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI ON APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY No.02A449. Decided November 29, 2002 The Sixth Circuit's stay of a District Court order enjoining enforcement of a Cincinnati ordinance that reserves to the city exclusive use of Fountain Square for seven weeks beginning on this date is vacated. Accepting the construction used by the courts below, the ordinance is significantly broader than a reservation of the exclusive right to erect unattended structures in the square during a high use period. Given the square's historic character as a public forum, under this Court's reasoning in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753 , the District Court correctly enjoined the city from enforcing those portions of the ordinance giving the city exclusive use of the square for the next seven weeks. JUSTICE STEVENS, Circuit Justice. The Cou...
Norfolk and Western R. Co. Vs. Ayers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers - 538 U.S. 135 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. v. AYERS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF KANAWHA COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA No. 01-963. Argued November 6, 2002-Decided March 10,2003 Alleging that petitioner Norfolk & Western Railway Company (Norfolk) had negligently exposed them to asbestos and thereby caused them to contract the occupational disease asbestosis, respondents, six former Norfolk employees (asbestosis claimants), brought this suit in a West Virginia state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FE LA or Act). Section 1 of the FELA provides: "Every common carrier by railroad while engaging in [interstate commerce], shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier in such commerce ... for such injury ... resulting in whole or in part from the [carrier's] negligence." As an element of their damages, the asbestosis claimants sought recovery ...
Abdur'Rahman Vs. Bell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-06-2002
Abdur'Rahman v. Bell - 537 U.S. 88 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus ABDUR'RAHMAN v. BELL, WARDEN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 01-9094. Argued November 6, 2002-Decided December 10,2002 Certiorari dismissed. James S. Liebman argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Thomas C. Goldstein, by appointment of the Court, 537 U. S. 809, Amy Howe, William P. Redick, Jr., and Bradley MacLean. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, Joseph F. Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon W Smith, Associate Solicitor General. Paul J. Zidlicky argued the cause for the State of Alabama et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Bill Pryor, Attorney General of Alabama, and Nathan A. Forrester, Solicitor General, John M. Bailey, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut,...
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Vs. Henson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson - 537 U.S. 28 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION, INC., ET AL. v. HENSON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 01-757. Argued October 15, 2002-Decided November 5, 2002 Respondent Henson's Louisiana state-court tort suit against petitioners was stayed when respondent intervened in the similar Price suit, underway in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Alabama. Although the ensuing settlement in Price stipulated that the Henson action be dismissed with prejudice, the Louisiana state court allowed Henson to proceed. Petitioners removed Henson to the Middle District of Louisiana, relying upon the general removal statute, 28 U. S. C. 1441(a), and asserting federal jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 1651, and the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 1367. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Alabama, which, inter alia, dismisse...
Yellow Transp., Inc. Vs. Michigan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-05-2002
Yellow Transp., Inc. v. Michigan - 537 U.S. 36 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus YELLOW TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. MICHIGAN ETAL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN No. 01-270. Argued October 7, 2002-Decided November 5, 2002 Prior to 1994, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) allowed States to charge interstate motor carriers operating within their borders annual registration fees of up to $10 per vehicle. As proof of registration, participating States issued stamps that were affixed to a card carried in each vehicle. Under this so-called "bingo card" system, some States entered into "reciprocity agreements" whereby, in exchange for reciprocal treatment, they discounted or waived registration fees for carriers from other States. In the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Congress directed the ICC to replace the "bingo card" regime with a new system, the "Single State Registration System," under which a carrier's annual registration with...
Sattazahn Vs. Pennsylvania
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-04-2002
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania - 537 U.S. 101 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus SATTAZAHN v. PENNSYLVANIA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 01-7574. Argued November 4, 2002-Decided January 14,2003 Under Pennsylvania law, (1) the verdict in the penalty phase of capital proceedings must be death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstance or one or more aggravating circumstances outweighing any mitigating circumstances, but it must be life imprisonment in all other instances; and (2) the court may discharge a jury if it determines that the jury will not unanimously agree on the sentence, but the court must then enter a life sentence. When petitioner's penalty-phase jury reported to the trial judge that it was hopelessly deadlocked 9-to-3 for life imprisonment, the court discharged the jury and entered a life sentence. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed petitioner's first-degree murder convictio...
Woodford Vs. Visciotti
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-04-2002
Woodford v. Visciotti - 537 U.S. 19 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus WOODFORD, WARDEN v. VISCIOTTI ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 02-137. Decided November 4, 2002 Respondent killed one person and seriously wounded another during a robbery. A California jury convicted him of murder and sentenced him to death. The State Supreme Court affirmed. In subsequently denying his state habeas corpus petition, that court assumed that respondent's trial counsel provided constitutionally inadequate representation during the trial's penalty phase, but found that it did not prejudice the jury's sentencing decision. The Federal District Court later granted respondent federal habeas relief as to his sentence, finding that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during the penalty phase. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the State Supreme Court's decision ran afoul of 28 U. S. C. 2254(d) because it was "co...
Early Vs. Packer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-04-2002
Early v. Packer - 537 U.S. 3 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus EARLY, WARDEN, ET AL. v. PACKER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1765. Decided November 4, 2002 A California jury convicted respondent of, inter alia, murder and attempted murder. On direct appeal, the State Court of Appeal rejected his claim that the trial judge coerced his deadlocked jury into continuing deliberations. The Federal District Court dismissed respondent's subsequent federal habeas petition but granted a certificate of appealability on the question whether the state trial judge violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by coercing the jury into rendering a verdict. The Ninth Circuit reversed on that ground and instructed the District Court to grant the writ. Held: The Ninth Circuit's decision exceeds the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 U. S. C. 2254(d), which forecloses habeas relief on any claim adjudicated on the...
Pierce County Vs. Guillen
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-04-2002
Pierce County v. Guillen - 537 U.S. 129 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON v. GUILLEN, LEGAL GUARDIAN OF GUILLEN ET AL., MINORS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 01-1229. Argued November 4, 2002-Decided January 14,2003 As part of its effort to improve the safety of the Nation's highways, Congress adopted the Hazard Elimination Program (Program), 23 U. S. C. 152, which provides state and local governments with funding to improve the most dangerous sections of their roads. To be eligible for such funding, a government must undertake a thorough evaluation of its public roads. Because of States' concerns that the absence of confidentiality with respect to 152's compliance measures would increase the liability risk for accidents that took place at hazardous locations before improvements could be made and Department of Transportation's concerns that the States' reluctance to be forthcoming in their data collection efforts undermine...
ins Vs. Orlando Ventura
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Nov-04-2002
INS v. Orlando Ventura - 537 U.S. 12 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. ORLANDO VENTURA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 02-29. Decided November 4, 2002 The Attorney General is authorized to grant asylum to an alien who demonstrates persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a "political opinion," and is required to withhold deportation where the alien's "life or freedom would be threatened" for that reason. 8 U. S. C. 1101(a)(42), 1158(a), 1253(h)(I). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled that respondent did not qualify for such protection based on the persecution he faced when he left Guatemala in 1993. The Ninth Circuit reversed and then went on to address the Government's alternative argument that respondent did not qualify for protection regardless of past persecution because conditions in Guatemala had improved to the point where no rea...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›