Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
Vieth Vs. Jubelirer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Vieth v. Jubelirer - 02-1580 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 VIETH V. JUBELIRER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VIETH et al. v. JUBELIRER, PRESIDENT OF THE PENNSYLVANIA SENATE, et al. appeal from united states district court for the middle district of pennsylvania No. 021580. Argued December 10, 2003Decided April 28, 2004 After Pennsylvanias General Assembly adopted a congressional redistricting plan, plaintiffs-appellants sued to enjoin the plans implementation, alleging, inter alia, that it constituted a political gerrymander in violation of Article I and the Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection Clause. The three-judge District Court dismissed the gerrymandering claim, and the plaintiffs appealed. Held: The judgment is affirmed. 241 F. Supp. 2d 478, affirmed. Justice Scalia, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice OConnor, and Justice Thomas, concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable st...
Engine Mfrs. Assn. Vs. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-28-2004
Engine Mfrs. Assn. v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. - 02-1343 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 ENGINE MFRS. ASSN. V. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITYMANAGEMENT DIST. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION et al. v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 021343. Argued January 14, 2004Decided April 28, 2004 Respondent South Coast Air Quality Management District (District)the California subdivision responsible for air pollution control in the Los Angeles metropolitan areaenacted six Fleet Rules prohibiting the purchase or lease by various public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do not comply with requirements in the Rules. Petitioner Engine Manufacturers Association sued the District and its officials, claiming that the Fleet Rules were pre-empted by 209 of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which prohibits the adoption or attempted enforcement of a...
Household Credit Services, Inc. Vs. Pfennig
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-21-2004
Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Pfennig - 02-857 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC., et al. v. PFENNIG certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 02857. Argued February 23, 2004Decided April 21, 2004 The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) regulates, inter alia , the disclosures that credit card issuers must make to consumers, 15 U. S. C. 1637(a), and provides consumers with a civil remedy for creditors failure to comply, 1640. Among other things, the creditors periodic balance statement to the consumer must include [t]he amount of any finance charge, 1637(b)(4), which is defined as an amount payable directly or indirectly by the [consumer], and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit. 1605(a). Section 1604(a) expressly gives to the Federal Reserve Board (Board) expansive authority to presc...
United States Vs. Lara
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-2004
United States v. Lara - 03-107 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 UNITED STATES V. LARA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. LARA certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 03107. Argued January 21, 2004Decided April 19, 2004 After respondent Lara, an Indian who is not a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe (Tribe), ignored the Tribes order excluding him from its reservation, he struck one of the federal officers arresting him. He pleaded guilty in Tribal Court to the crime of violence to a policeman. The Federal Government then charged him with the federal crime of assaulting a federal officer. Lara claimed that, because key elements of that crime mirrored elements of his tribal crime, he was protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Government countered that the Clause does not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns , and that this dual sovereignty doctrine determined the outcome. The Government noted that this Co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›