Us Supreme Court Court February 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.
Chevron U.S. A. Inc. Vs. Echazabal
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Echazabal - 536 U.S. 73 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1406. Argued February 27, 2002-Decided June 10,2002 Respondent Echazabal worked for independent contractors at one of petitioner Chevron U. S. A. lnc.'s oil refineries until Chevron refused to hire him because of a liver condition-which its doctors said would be exacerbated by continued exposure to toxins at the refinery-and the contractor employing him laid him off in response to Chevron's request that it reassign him to a job without exposure to toxins or remove him from the refinery. Echazabal filed suit, claiming, among other things, that Chevron's actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Chevron defended under an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation permitting the defense that a worker's disability on the job would pose a direct thr...
Raygor Vs. Regents of Univ. of Minn.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Raygor v. Regents of Univ. of Minn. - 534 U.S. 533 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus RAYGOR ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA No. 00-1514. Argued November 26, 200l-Decided February 27, 2002 Petitioners each filed complaints in Federal District Court against respondent university (hereinafter respondent), an arm of the State of Minnesota, alleging a federal cause of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and a state law discrimination action under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. 1367, which purports to toll the limitations period for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed, 1367(d). Respondent's answers included the affirmative defense that the suits were barred by the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The District Court subsequently dismissed the claims, and petitioners withdrew their federal appeal...
Carey Vs. Saffold
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2002
Carey v. Saffold - 536 U.S. 214 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus CAREY, WARDEN v. SAFFOLD CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No.01-301. Argued February 27, 2002-Decided June 17,2002 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 requires a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief to file his petition within one year after his state conviction becomes final, 28 U. S. C. 2244(d)(I)(A), but excludes from that period the time during which an application for state collateral review is "pending," 2244(d)(2). Respondent Saffold filed a state habeas petition in California seven days before the federal deadline. Five days after the state trial court denied his petition, he filed a further petition in the State Court of Appeal. Four and one-half months after that petition was denied, he filed a further petition in the State Supreme Court, which denied the petition on the merits and for lack of diligence. The Federal District Court d...
Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. Vs. Village of Stratton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N. Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton - 536 U.S. 150 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., ET AL. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1737. Argued February 26, 2002-Decided June 17,2002 Respondent Village of Stratton (Village) promulgated an ordinance that, inter alia, prohibits "canvassers" from "going in and upon" private residential property to promote any "cause" without first obtaining a permit from the mayor's office by completing and signing a registration form. Petitioners, a society and a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that publish and distribute religious materials, brought this action for injunctive relief, alleging that the ordinance violates their First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion, free speech, and freedom of the press. The District Court upheld most provisions of the ordinance as valid...
Swierkiewicz Vs. Sorema N. A.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. - 534 U.S. 506 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus SWIERKIEWICZ v. SOREMA N. A. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 00-1853. Argued January 15, 2002-Decided February 26, 2002 Petitioner, a 53-year-old native of Hungary, filed this suit against respondent, his former employer, alleging that he had been fired on account of his national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and on account of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In affirming the District Court's dismissal of the complaint, the Second Circuit relied on its settled precedent requiring an employment discrimination complaint to allege facts constituting a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 , 802. The court held that petitioner had failed to meet his burden because his allegations were insufficient as a...
Porter Vs. Nussle
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2002
Porter v. Nussle - 534 U.S. 516 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus PORTER ET AL. v. NUSSLE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT No. 00-853. Argued January 14, 2002-Decided February 26, 2002 Without filing a grievance under applicable Connecticut Department of Correction procedures, plaintiff-respondent Nussle, a state prison inmate, commenced a federal-court action under 42 U. S. C. 1983, charging that corrections officers, including defendant-petitioner Porter, had subjected him to a sustained pattern of harassment and intimidation and had singled him out for a severe beating in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments." The District Court dismissed Nussle's suit, relying on a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U. S. C. 1997e(a), that directs: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ... , or any other Federal law, by a prisoner ... until ...
Lapides Vs. Board of Regents of Univ. System of GA.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-2002
Lapides v. Board of Regents of Univ. System of Ga. - 535 U.S. 613 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus LAPIDES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 01-298. Argued February 25, 2002-Decided May 13,2002 Petitioner, a professor in the Georgia state university system, filed a statecourt suit against respondents-the system's board of regents (hereinafter Georgia or State) and university officials in their personal capacities and as state agents-alleging that the officials had violated state tort law and 42 U. S. C. 1983 when they placed sexual harassment allegations in his personnel files. The defendants removed the case to Federal District Court and then sought dismissal. Conceding that a state statute had waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits in state court, the State claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in the federal court. The District Court held that ...
WisconsIn Dept. of Health and Family Servs. Vs. Blumer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2002
Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer - 534 U.S. 473 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES v. BLUMER CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN No. 00-952. Argued December 3, 200l-Decided February 20, 2002 In developing standards for determining Medicaid eligibility, participating States must "tak[e] into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services (Secretary)], available to the applicant." 42 U. S. C. 1396a(a)(17)(B) (emphasis added). Because spouses typically possess assets and income jointly and bear financial responsibility for each other, Medicaid eligibility determinations for married applicants have resisted simple solutions. Until the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA or Act), state standards often left a spouse living at home (called the "community spouse") destitute, the couple's ass...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›