Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
Bates Vs. Dow Agrosciences Llc
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC - 03-388 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 BATES V. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BATES et al. v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 03388.Argued January 10, 2005Decided April 27, 2005 Petitioner Texas peanut farmers allege that their crops were severely damaged by the application of respondents (Dow) Strongarm pesticide, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered pursuant to its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Petitioners gave Dow notice of their intent to sue, claiming that Strongarms label recommended its use in all peanut-growing areas when Dow knew or should have known that it would stunt the growth of peanuts in their soil, which had pH levels of at least 7.0. In response, Dow sought a declaratory judgment in the Federal District Court, asserting that FIFRA pre-empted petitioners claims. P...
Pace Vs. Diguglielmo
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-2005
Pace v. DiGuglielmo - 03-9627 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 PACE V. DIGUGLIELMO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PACE v . DiGUGLIELMO, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 039627.Argued February 28, 2005Decided April 27, 2005 After the Pennsylvania Superior Court found petitioners state postconviction petition untimely under the Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA) and the State Supreme Court denied review, petitioner sought federal habeas. The District Court refused to dismiss the petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996s (AEDPA) statute of limitations, finding that petitioner was entitled to both statutory and equitable tolling while his PCRA petition was pending even though that petition was untimely under state law. Reversing, the Third Circuit held, with regard to statutory tolling, that an untimely PCRA petition is ...
Small Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Small v. United States - 03-750 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 SMALL V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SMALL v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 03750.Argued November 3, 2004Decided April 26, 2005 Petitioner Small was convicted in a Japanese Court of trying to smuggle firearms and ammunition into that country. He served five years in prison and then returned to the United States, where he bought a gun. Federal authorities subsequently charged Small under 18 U. S. C. 922(g)(1), which forbids any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to possess any firearm. (Emphasis added.) Small pleaded guilty while reserving the right to challenge his conviction on the ground that his earlier conviction, being foreign, fell outside 922(g)(1)s scope. The Federal District Court and the Third Circuit rejected this argument. Held: Section 922(g)(1)s ...
Pasquantino Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-26-2005
Pasquantino v. United States - 03-725 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PASQUANTINO et al. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 03725.Argued November 9, 2004Decided April 26, 2005 Petitioners carried out a scheme to smuggle large quantities of liquor into Canada from the United States to evade Canadas heavy alcohol import taxes. They were convicted of violating the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. 1343, for doing so. That statute prohibits the use of interstate wires to effect any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. The Fourth Circuit affirmed their convictions, rejecting petitioners argument that their prosecution contravened the common-law revenue rule, which bars courts from enforcing foreign sovereigns tax laws. The Fourth Circuit also held that Canadas right to receive tax...
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Vs. Broudo
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-19-2005
Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo - 03-932 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. V. BROUDO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al. v. BROUDO et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 03932.Argued January 12, 2005Decided April 19, 2005 Respondents filed a securities fraud class action, alleging that petitioners, Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and some of its managers and directors (hereinafter Dura), made, inter alia, misrepresentations about future Food and Drug Administration approval of a new asthmatic spray device, leading respondents to purchase Dura securities at an artificially inflated price. In dismissing, the District Court found that the complaint failed adequately to allege loss causation i.e., a causal connection between the spray device misrepresentation and the economic loss, 15 U. S. C. 78u4(b)(4). The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that a plaintiff can satisfy t...
Johnson Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Johnson v. United States - 03-9685 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHNSON v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 039685.Argued January 18, 2005Decided April 4, 2005 Following petitioner Johnsons 1994 guilty plea on a federal drug charge, the District Court gave him an enhanced sentence as a career offender under the federal Sentencing Guidelines based on two prior Georgia drug convictions. On appeal, Johnson argued for the first time that he should not have received an enhanced sentence because one of the predicate Georgia convictions was invalid, but the Eleventh Circuit affirmed his sentence and this Court denied certiorari. Two days later, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) went into effect, imposing, among other things, a 1-year statute of limitations on motions by prisoners seeking to modify their federal sentences. The ...
Rousey Vs. Jacoway
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-04-2005
Rousey v. Jacoway - 03-1407 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 ROUSEY V. JACOWAY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROUSEY et ux. v. JACOWAY certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 031407.Argued December 1, 2004Decided April 4, 2005 Several years after petitioners deposited distributions from their pension plans into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), they filed a joint petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. They sought to shield portions of their IRAs from their creditors by claiming them as exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U. S. C. 522(d)(10)(E), which provides, inter alia, that a debtor may withdraw from the estate his right to receive a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of age. Respondent Jacoway, the Bankruptcy Trustee, objected to the Rouseys exemption and moved for turnover of the IRAs to her. The Bankruptcy Court sustained her objection a...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›