Us Supreme Court Court March 2005 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.
Exxon Mobil Corp. Vs. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. - 03-1696 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EXXON MOBIL CORP. et al. v . SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 031696.Argued February 23, 2005Decided March 30, 2005 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, at issue in this case, has been applied by this Court only twice, in Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co ., 263 U. S. 413 , and in District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U. S. 462 . In Rooker, plaintiffs previously defeated in state court filed suit in a Federal District Court alleging that the adverse state-court judgment was unconstitutional and asking that it be declared null and void. 263 U. S., at 414415. Noting preliminarily that the state court had acted within its jurisdiction, this Court explained that if the state-court decision was wrong, that did not ...
Smith Vs. City of Jackson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Smith v. City of Jackson - 03-1160 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SMITH et al. v. CITY OF JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 031160.Argued November 3, 2004Decided March 30, 2005 In revising its employee pay plan, respondent City granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers in an attempt to bring their starting salaries up to the regional average. Officers with less than five years service received proportionately greater raises than those with more seniority, and most officers over 40 had more than five years of service. Petitioners, a group of older officers, filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), claiming, inter alia, that they were adversely affected by the plan because of their age. The District Court granted the City summary judgment. Affirming, the Fifth Circuit ruled that disparate-imp...
Rhines Vs. Weber
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-30-2005
Rhines v. Weber - 03-9046 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 RHINES V. WEBER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RHINES v. WEBER, WARDEN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 039046.Argued January 12, 2005Decided March 30, 2005 After petitioner Rhines state conviction for first-degree murder and burglary became final and his state habeas petition was denied, he filed a federal habeas petition. Because the 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) was tolled while his state petition was pending, see 28 U. S. C. 2244(d)(2), he had more than 11 months before the limitations period expired. However, by the time the District Court ruled that eight of his claims had not been exhausted in state court, the limitations period had run. If the court had dismissed his mixed petition, Rhines would have been unable to refile after exhausting his claims, so the court decided to hold his fe...
City of Sherrill Vs. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. - 03-855 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 CITY OF SHERRILL V. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF N. Y. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CITY OF SHERRILL, NEW YORK v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 03855.Argued January 11, 2005Decided March 29, 2005 Respondent Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN or Tribe) is a direct descendant of the Oneida Indian Nation (Oneida Nation), whose aboriginal homeland, at the Nations birth, comprised some six million acres in what is now central New York State (State). See, e.g., Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U. S. 661 , 664 (Oneida I) . In 1788, the State and the Oneida Nation entered into a treaty whereby the Oneidas ceded all their lands to the State, but retained a reservation of about 300,000 acres for their own use. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. , ...
Jackson Vs. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed. - 02-1672 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JACKSON v. BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 021672.Argued November 30, 2004Decided March 29, 2005 After petitioner, the girls basketball coach at a public high school, discovered that his team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities, he complained unsuccessfully to his supervisors. He then received negative work evaluations and ultimately was removed as the girls coach. He brought this suit alleging that respondent school board (Board) had retaliated against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high schools athletic program, and that such retaliation violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S. C. 1681(a), which provides that [n]o person shall, on the basis of sex, be ...
Rancho Palos Verdes Vs. Abrams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams - 03-1601 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 RANCHO PALOS VERDES V. ABRAMS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v . ABRAMS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 031601.Argued January 19, 2005Decided March 22, 2005 After petitioner City denied respondent Abrams permission to construct a radio tower on his property, he filed this action seeking, inter alia , injunctive relief under 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. 332(c)(7), as added by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), and money damages under 42 U. S. C. 1983. Section 332(c)(7) imposes specific limitations on the traditional authority of state and local governments to regulate the location, construction, and modification of wireless communications facilities, and provides, in 332(c)(7)(B)(v), that anyone adversely affected by any final action by [such] a government may commence an act...
Muehler Vs. Mena
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Muehler v. Mena - 03-1423 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 MUEHLER V. MENA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MUEHLER et al. v. MENA certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 031423.Argued December 8, 2004Decided March 22, 2005 Respondent Mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. Petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia , deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. Mena sued the officers under 42 U. S. C. 1983, and the District Court found in her favor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain Mena during the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the officers questioning of Mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent Fourth Amendment violation. Held: 1. Menas detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the Fourt...
Brown Vs. Payton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-22-2005
Brown v. Payton - 03-1039 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 BROWN V. PAYTON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BROWN, WARDEN v. PAYTON certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 031039.Argued November 10, 2004Decided March 22, 2005 In the penalty phase of respondent Paytons trial following his conviction on capital murder and related charges, his counsel presented witnesses who testified that, during the one year and nine months Payton had been incarcerated since his arrest, he had made a sincere commitment to God, participated in prison Bible study and a prison ministry, and had a calming effect on other prisoners. The trial judge gave jury instructions that followed verbatim the text of a California statute, setting forth 11 different factors, labeled (a) through (k), to guide the jury in determining whether to impose a death sentence or life imprisonment. The last such instruction, the so-called factor (k) instruction, directed jurors to c...
Wilkinson Vs. Dotson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Wilkinson v. Dotson - 03-287 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 WILKINSON V. DOTSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, et al. v. DOTSON et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 03287.Argued December 6, 2004Decided March 7, 2005 Respondents Dotson and Johnson are Ohio state prisoners. After parole officials determined that Dotson was not eligible for parole and that Johnson was not suitable for parole, they brought separate actions for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. 1983, claiming that Ohios parole procedures violate the Federal Constitution. In each case, the Federal District Court concluded that a 1983 action does not lie and that the prisoner would have to seek relief through a habeas corpus suit. The Sixth Circuit ultimately consolidated the cases and reversed, finding that the actions could proceed under 1983. Held: State prisoners may b...
Ballard Vs. Commissioner
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-07-2005
Ballard v. Commissioner - 03-184 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 BALLARD V. COMMISSIONER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BALLARD et ux. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 03184.Argued December 7, 2004Decided March 7, 2005 The Tax Courts Chief Judge appoints auxiliary officers, called special trial judges, to hear certain cases, 26 U. S. C. 7443A(a), (b), but ultimate decision, when tax deficiencies exceed $50,000, is reserved for the court itself, 7443A(b)(5), (c). Tax Court Rule 183(b) governs the two-tiered proceedings in which a special trial judge hears the case, but the court renders the final decision. Rule 183(b) directs that, after trial and submission of briefs, the special trial judge shall submit a report, including findings of fact and opinion, to the Chief Judge, [who] will assign the case to a Judge of the Court. In acting on the report, the assigned Tax Court judge must give ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »