Us Supreme Court Court March 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.
Mickens Vs. Taylor
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Mickens v. Taylor - 535 U.S. 162 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus MICKENS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-9285. Argued November 5, 200l-Decided March 27, 2002 A Virginia jury convicted petitioner of the premeditated murder of Timothy Hall during or following the commission of an attempted forcible sodomy, and sentenced petitioner to death. Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition alleging, inter alia, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because one of his court-appointed attorneys had a conflict of interest at trial. Petitioner's lead attorney, Bryan Saunders, had represented Hall on assault and concealed-weapons charges at the time of the murder. The same juvenile court judge who dismissed the charges against Hall later appointed Saunders to represent petitioner. Saunders did not disclose to the court, his co-counsel, or petitioner that he had previously represented Hall. The District Court ...
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. Vs. Nlrb
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB - 535 U.S. 137 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 00-1595. Argued January 15, 2002-Decided March 27, 2002 Petitioner hired Jose Castro on the basis of documents appearing to verify his authorization to work in the United States, but laid him and others off after they supported a union-organizing campaign at petitioner's plant. Respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board) found that the layoffs violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and ordered backpay and other relief. At a compliance hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine the amount of backpay, Castro testified, inter alia, that he was born in Mexico, that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, this country, and that he gained employment with petitioner only after tend...
Barnhart Vs. Walton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-27-2002
Barnhart v. Walton - 535 U.S. 212 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY v. WALTON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1937. Argued January 16, 2002-Decided March 27, 2002 The Social Security Act authorizes payment of Title II disability insurance benefits and Title XVI Supplemental Security Income to individuals who have an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable ... impairment ... which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months." 42 U. S. C. 423(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added); accord, 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Social Security Administration (Agency) denied benefits to respondent Walton, finding that his "inability" to engage in substantial gainful activity lasted only 11 months. The District Court affirmed, but the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the 12-month duration requirement modifies ...
Department of Housing and Urban Development Vs. Rucker
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker - 535 U.S. 125 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1770. Argued February 19, 2002-Decided March 26, 2002* Title 42 U. S. C. 1437d(l)(6) provides that each "public housing agency shall utilize leases ... provid[ing] that ... any drug-related criminal activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant's household, or any guest or other person under the tenant's control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy." Respondents are four such tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of their leases obligates them to "assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant's control, shall not engage in ... any drug-related criminal activity on or near...
DevlIn Vs. Scardelletti
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-26-2002
Devlin v. Scardelletti - 536 U.S. 1 (2002) CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus DEVLIN v. SCARDELLETTI ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-417. Argued March 26, 2002-Decided June 10,2002 Petitioner retiree participates in a defined benefits pension plan (Plan) that was amended in 1991 to add a cost of living increase (COLA). Because the Plan could not support such a large benefits increase, its trustees ultimately eliminated the COLA in 1997 and filed a class action in the Maryland Federal District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the 1997 amendment was binding on all Plan members or that the 1991 COLA was void. Petitioner's separate challenge to the 1997 amendment was dismissed by a New York Federal District Court, which found that the Maryland court should resolve the matter. By this time, the Maryland court had already conditionally certified a class under Fede...
Young Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
Young v. United States - 535 U.S. 43 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus YOUNG ET ux. v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 00-1567. Argued January 9, 2002-Decided March 4, 2002 If the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a claim for certain taxes for which the return was due within three years before the individual taxpayer files a bankruptcy petition, its claim enjoys eighth priority under 11 U. S. C. 507(a)(8)(A)(i), and is nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 523(a)(I)(A). The IRS assessed a tax liability against petitioners for their failure to include payment with their 1992 income tax return filed on October 15, 1993. On May 1, 1996, petitioners filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, which they moved to dismiss before a reorganization plan was approved. On March 12, 1997, the day before the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Chapter 13 petition, petitioners filed a Chapter 7 petition. A discharge was granted, and the cas...
New York Vs. Ferc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
New York v. FERC - 535 U.S. 1 (2002) CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus NEW YORK ET AL. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 00-568. Argued October 3, 200l-Decided March 4, 2002* When the Federal Power Act (FPA) became law in 1935, most electric utilities operated as separate, local monopolies subject to state or local regulation; their sales were "bundled," meaning that consumers paid a single charge for both the cost of the electricity and the cost of its delivery; and there was little competition among utility companies. Section 201(b) of the FPA gave the Federal Power Commission (predecessor to respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) jurisdiction over "the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce"; 205 prohibited, among other...
United States Vs. Vonn
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-2002
United States v. Vonn - 535 U.S. 55 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. VONN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 00-973. Argued November 6, 200l-Decided March 4, 2002 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 lays out steps that a judge must take to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing and voluntary. Rule l1(h)'s requirement that any variance from those procedures "which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded" is similar to the general "harmless-error" rule in Rule 52(a). However, Rule l1(h) does not include a plain-error provision comparable to Rule 52(b), which provides that a defendant who fails to object to trial error may nonetheless have a conviction reversed by showing among other things that plain error affected his substantial rights. Mter respondent Vonn was charged with federal bank robbery and firearm crimes, the Magistrate Judge twice advised him of his constitutional rights, including the right t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›