Us Supreme Court Court January 2004 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.
Lamie Vs. United States Trustee
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-26-2004
Lamie v. United States Trustee - 02-693 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LAMIE v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 02693. Argued November 10, 2003Decided January 26, 2004 Before 1994, 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code authorized a court to award to a trustee, to an examiner, to a professional person employed under section 327 , or to the debtors attorney (1) reasonable compensation for services rendered by such trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney . (Emphasis added to highlight text later deleted.) In 1994 Congress amended the Code with a reform Act. The Act altered 330(a) by deleting or to the debtors attorney from what was 330(a) and is now 330(a)(1). This change created apparent legislative drafting error in the current section. The section is left with a missing or that infects its grammar. And its inclusion of attorney ...
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation Vs. Epa
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-26-2004
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation v. EPA - 02-658 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 ALASKA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTALCONSERVATION V. EPA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 02658. Argued October 8, 2003Decided January 21, 2004 The Clean Air Acts (CAA or Act) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, 42 U. S. C. 7477, was designed to ensure that the air quality in attainment areas, i.e., areas that are already clean, will not degrade, see 7470(1). The program bars construction of any major air pollutant emitting facility not equipped with the best available control technology (BACT). 7475(a)(4). The Act defines BACT as an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of [pollutant] reduction which the [state] permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environm...
Fellers Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-26-2004
Fellers v. United States - 02-6320 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 FELLERS V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FELLERS v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 026320. Argued December 10, 2003Decided January 26, 2004 Police officers went to petitioners home and advised him that they had come to discuss his involvement in drug distribution. They told him that they had a federal warrant for his arrest and that a grand jury had indicted him for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. During the course of a brief discussion, petitioner made several inculpatory statements. Once at the county jail, petitioner was advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , and Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U. S. 285 , signed a waiver of those rights, and reiterated his earlier statements. Before trial, he moved to suppress the inculpatory statements he made at his home and at the jail. A Magistrate ...
Kontrick Vs. Ryan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-14-2004
Kontrick v. Ryan - 02-819 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 KONTRICK V. RYAN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KONTRICK v. RYAN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 02819. Argued November 3, 2003Decided January 14, 2004 A creditor in Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings has 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors to file a complaint objecting to the debtors discharge. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(a). The bankruptcy court may extend that period for cause on motion filed before the time has expired. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(b). Reinforcing Rule 4004(b)s restriction on extension of the Rule 4004(a) deadline, Rule 9006(b)(3) allows enlargement of the time for taking action under Rule 4004(a) only to the extent and under the conditions stated in [that rule], i.e. , only as permitted by Rule 4004(b). On April 4, 1997, petitioner Kontrick filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. After gaining three successive t...
illinois Vs. Lidster
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
Illinois v. Lidster - 02-1060 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER certiorari to the supreme court of illinois No. 021060. Argued November 5, 2003Decided January 13, 2004 Police set up a highway checkpoint to obtain information from motorists about a hit-and-run accident occurring about one week earlier at the same location and time of night. Officers stopped each vehicle for 10 to 15 seconds, asked the occupants whether they had seen anything happen there the previous weekend, and handed each driver a flyer describing and requesting information about the accident. As respondent Lidster approached, his minivan swerved, nearly hitting an officer. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidsters breath. Another officer administered a sobriety test and then arrested Lidster. He was convicted in Illinois state court of driving under the influence of alcohol. He challenged his arrest and conviction on the ground that...
Sec Vs. Edwards
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-13-2004
SEC v. Edwards - 02-1196 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 SEC V. EDWARDS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. EDWARDS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 021196. Argued November 4, 2003Decided January 13, 2004 Respondent was the chairman, chief executive officer, and sole shareholder of ETS Payphones, Inc., which sold payphones to the public via independent distributors. The payphones were offered with an agreement under which ETS leased back the payphone from the purchaser for a fixed monthly payment, thereby giving purchasers a fixed 14% annual return on their investment. Although ETS marketing materials trumpeted the incomparable pay phone as an exciting business opportunity, the payphones did not generate enough revenue for ETS to make the payments required by the leaseback agreements, so the company depended on funds from new investors to meet its obligations. After ETS filed for bankruptcy ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›