Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
Arthur Andersen Llp Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-31-2005
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States - 04-368 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 04368.Argued April 27, 2005Decided May 31, 2005 As Enron Corporations financial difficulties became public, petitioner, Enrons auditor, instructed its employees to destroy documents pursuant to its document retention policy. Petitioner was indicted under 18 U. S. C. 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B), which make it a crime to knowingly corruptly persuad[e] another person with intent to cause that person to withhold documents from, or alter documents for use in, an official proceeding. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the District Courts jury instructions properly conveyed the meaning of corruptly persuades and official proceeding in 1512(b); that the jury need not find any con...
Tory Vs. Cochran
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-31-2005
Tory v. Cochran - 03-1488 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 TORY V. COCHRAN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TORY et al. v . COCHRAN certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district No. 031488.Argued March 22, 2005Decided May 31, 2005 In a state-law defamation action filed by attorney Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., a California trial court found that petitioner Tory, assisted by petitioner Craft and others, had, inter alia, falsely claimed that Cochran owed him money, picketed Cochrans office with signs containing insults and obscenities, and pursued Cochran while chanting similar threats and insults, in order to coerce Cochran into paying Tory money to desist from such libelous and slanderous activity. Because Tory indicated that he would continue to engage in the activity absent a court order, the court permanently enjoined petitioners and their agents from, among other things, picketing, displaying signs, and making oral statements about Cochran a...
Cutter Vs. Wilkinson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-31-2005
Cutter v. Wilkinson - 03-9877 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 CUTTER V. WILKINSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CUTTER et al. v . WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIODEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION ANDCORRECTION, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 039877.Argued March 21, 2005Decided May 31, 2005 Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U. S. C. 2000cc1(a)(1)(2), provides in part: No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest, and does so by the least restrictive means. Petitioners, current and former inmates of Ohio state institutions, allege, inter alia , that respondent prison officials violated 3 by failing to accommodate petitioners exercise of their nonmainstream religions in a variety of ways. Respondents moved to dismiss that claim, a...
Johanns Vs. Livestock Marketing Assn.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2005
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn. - 03-1164 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 031164.Argued December 8, 2004Decided May 23, 2005 The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) establishes a federal policy of promoting and marketing beef and beef products. The Secretary of Agriculture has implemented the Act through a Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order), which creates a Cattlemens Beef Promotion and Research Board (Beef Board) and an Operating Committee, and imposes an assessment, or checkoff, on all sales and importation of cattle. The assessment funds, among other things, beef promotional campaigns approved by the Operating Committee and the Secretary. Respondents, associations whose members pay the checkoff and individuals whos...
Deck Vs. Missouri
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2005
Deck v. Missouri - 04-5293 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 DECK V. MISSOURI SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DECK v. MISSOURI certiorari to the supreme court of missouri No. 045293.Argued March 1, 2005Decided May 23, 2005 Petitioner Deck was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, but the Missouri Supreme Court set aside the sentence. At his new sentencing proceeding, he was shackled with leg irons, handcuffs, and a belly chain. The trial court overruled counsels objections to the shackles, and Deck was again sentenced to death. Affirming, the State Supreme Court rejected Decks claim that his shackling violated, inter alia, the Federal Constitution. Held: The Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during a capital trials penalty phase, as it does during the guilt phase, unless that use is justified by an essential state interestsuch as courtroom securityspecific to the defendant on trial. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U. S. 560 , 568569. Pp. 310...
Clingman Vs. Beaver
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2005
Clingman v. Beaver - 04-37 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 CLINGMAN V. BEAVER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CLINGMAN, SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA STATE ELECTION BOARD, et al. v . BEAVER et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 0437.Argued January 19, 2005Decided May 23, 2005 Under Oklahomas semiclosed primary law, a political party may invite only its own registered members and voters registered as Independents to vote in its primary. When the Libertarian Party of Oklahoma (LPO) notified the State Election Board it wanted to open its upcoming primary to all registered voters regardless of party affiliation, the Board agreed as to Independents, but not as to other parties members. The LPO and several Oklahomans registered as Republicans and Democrats then sued for equitable relief, alleging that Oklahomas statute unconstitutionally burdens their First Amendment right to freedom of political association. The District Court upheld the st...
Lingle Vs. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2005
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. - 04-163 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 LINGLE V. CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LINGLE, GOVERNOR OF HAWAII, et al. v . CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04163.Argued February 22, 2005Decided May 23, 2005 Concerned about the effects of market concentration on retail gasoline prices, the Hawaii Legislature passed Act 257, which limits the rent oil companies may charge dealers leasing company-owned service stations. Respondent Chevron U. S. A. Inc., then one of the largest oil companies in Hawaii, brought this suit seeking a declaration that the rent cap effected an unconstitutional taking of its property and an injunction against application of the cap to its stations. Applying Agins v. City of Tiburon , 447 U. S. 255 , 260where this Court declared that government regulation of private property effects a taking if [it] does not substantially ...
Granholm Vs. Heald
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-16-2005
Granholm v. Heald - 03-1116 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 GRANHOLM V. HEALD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GRANHOLM, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al. v. HEALD et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 031116.Argued December 7, 2004Decided May 16, 2005 Michigan and New York regulate the sale and importation of wine through three-tier systems requiring separate licenses for producers, wholesalers, and retailers. These schemes allow in-state, but not out-of-state, wineries to make direct sales to consumers. This differential treatment explicitly discriminates against interstate commerce by limiting the emerging and significant direct-sale business. Influenced by an increasing number of small wineries and a decreasing number of wine wholesalers, direct sales have grown because small wineries may not produce enough wine or have sufficient consumer demand for their wine to make it economical for wholesalers to carry their products. In N...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›