Us Supreme Court Court June 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.
Van Orden Vs. Perry
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Van Orden v. Perry - 03-1500 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 VAN ORDEN V. PERRY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VAN ORDEN v . PERRY, in his official capacity as GOVERNOR OF TEXAS and CHAIRMAN, STATE PRESERVATION BOARD, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 031500.Argued March 2, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 Among the 21 historical markers and 17 monuments surrounding the Texas State Capitol is a 6-foot-high monolith inscribed with the Ten Commandments. The legislative record illustrates that, after accepting the monument from the Fraternal Order of Eaglesa national social, civic, and patriotic organizationthe State selected a site for it based on the recommendation of the state organization that maintains the capitol grounds. Petitioner, an Austin resident who encounters the monument during his frequent visits to those grounds, brought this 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit seeking a declaration that the monuments placement violates the Fir...
Bell Vs. Thompson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Bell v. Thompson - 04-514 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 BELL V. THOMPSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BELL, WARDEN v . THOMPSON certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 04514.Argued April 26, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 After respondent Thompson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, Tennessee state courts denied postconviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel had been ineffective for failing to adequately investigate his mental health. His federal habeas attorneys subsequently retained psychologist Dr. Sultan, whose report and deposition contended that Thompson suffered from serious mental illness at the time of his offense. The District Court dismissed the petition, but apparently Thompsons habeas counsel had failed to include Sultans deposition and report in the record. Upholding the dismissal, the Sixth Circuit, inter alia, found no ineffective assistance and did not discuss Sultans report and deposition in ...
Metro-goldwyn-mayer Studios Inc. Vs. Grokster, Ltd.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. - 04-480 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. V.GROKSTER, LTD. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER STUDIOS INC. et al. v . GROKSTER, LTD., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04480.Argued March 29, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 Respondent companies distribute free software that allows computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks, so called because the computers communicate directly with each other, not through central servers. Although such networks can be used to share any type of digital file, recipients of respondents software have mostly used them to share copyrighted music and video files without authorization. Seeking damages and an injunction, a group of movie studios and other copyright holders (hereinafter MGM) sued respondents for their users copyright infringements, alleging that respondents knowin...
National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. Vs. Brand X Internet Servi ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services - 04-277 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM 2004 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V.BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION et al. v . BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04277.Argued March 29, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 Consumers traditionally access the Internet through dial-up connections provided via local telephone lines. Internet service providers (ISPs), in turn, link those calls to the Internet network, not only by providing a physical connection, but also by offering consumers the ability to translate raw data into information they may both view on their own computers and transmit to others connected to the Internet. Technological limitations of local telephone wires, however, retard the speed at which Internet data may be transmitted through such narrowba...
Mccreary County Vs. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. - 03-1693 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES McCREARY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al. v . AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF KENTUCKY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 031693.Argued March 2, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 After petitioners, two Kentucky Counties, each posted large, readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, respondents, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) et al., sued under 42 U. S. C. 1983 to enjoin the displays on the ground that they violated the First Amendments Establishment Clause. The Counties then adopted nearly identical resolutions calling for a more extensive exhibit meant to show that the Commandments are Kentuckys precedent legal code. The resolutions noted several grounds for taking that position, including the state legislatures ac...
Castle Rock Vs. Gonzales
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2005
Castle Rock v. Gonzales - 04-278 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO v . GONZALES, individually and a next best friend of her deceased minor children, GONZALES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 04278.Argued March 21, 2005Decided June 27, 2005 Respondent filed this suit under 42 U. S. C. 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children. The District Court granted the towns motion to dismiss, but an en banc majority of the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that respondent had alleged a cognizable procedural due process claim bec...
Kelo Vs. New London
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Kelo v. New London - 04-108 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 KELO V. NEW LONDON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KELO et al. v . CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut No. 04108.Argued February 22, 2005Decided June 23, 2005 After approving an integrated development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy, respondent city, through its development agent, purchased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condemnation proceedings when petitioners, the owners of the rest of the property, refused to sell. Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the public use restriction in the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others. Relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff , 46...
Orff Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Orff v. United States - 03-1566 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 ORFF V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ORFF et al. v . UNITED STATES et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 031566.Argued February 23, 2005Decided June 23, 2005 Petitioner California farmers and farming entities purchase water from respondent Westlands Water District, which receives its water from the United States Bureau of Reclamation under a 1963 contract between Westlands and the Bureau. In 1993, Westlands and other water districts sued the Bureau for reducing their water supply. Petitioners, though not parties to the 1963 contract, intervened as plaintiffs. After negotiations, all parties except petitioners stipulated to dismissal of the districts complaint. Petitioners pressed forward with, as relevant here, the claim that the United States had breached the contract. They contended that they were third-party beneficiaries entitled to enforce t...
Mayle, Warden Vs. Felix
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
MAYLE, WARDEN v. FELIX - 03-10198 (2005) ...
Gonzalez Vs. Crosby
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2005
Gonzalez v. Crosby - 04-6432 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 GONZALEZ V. CROSBY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALEZ v . CROSBY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 046432.Argued April 25, 2005Decided June 23, 2005 Petitioners federal habeas corpus petition was dismissed as time barred when the District Court concluded that the federal limitations period was not tolled while petitioners motion for postconviction relief was pending in state court. After petitioner abandoned his attempt to seek review of the District Courts decision, this Court decided that a state postconviction relief petition can toll the federal statute of limitations even if, like petitioners, the petition is ultimately dismissed as procedurally barred. Artuz v. Bennett , 531 U. S. 4 . Petitioner filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment, which the District Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »