Us Supreme Court Court February 2006 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.
Texaco Inc. Vs. Dagher
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher - 04-805 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 TEXACO INC. V. DAGHER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TEXACO INC. v . DAGHER et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04805.Argued January 10, 2006Decided February 28, 2006 Petitioners, Texaco Inc. and Shell Oil Co., collaborated in a joint venture, Equilon Enterprises, to refine and sell gasoline in the western United States under the two companies original brand names. After Equilon set a single price for both brands, respondents, Texaco and Shell Oil service station owners, brought suit alleging that, by unifying gas prices under the two brands, petitioners had violated the per se rule against price fixing long recognized under 1 of the Sherman Act, see, e.g. , Catalano, Inc. v. Target Sales, Inc., 446 U. S. 643 , 647. Granting petitioners summary judgment, the District Court determined that the rule of reason, rather than a per se rule, governs respond...
Scheidler Vs. National Organization for Women, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc. - 04-1244 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN,INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SCHEIDLER et al. v . NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 041244.Argued November 30, 2005Decided February 28, 2006 Respondents, a national nonprofit organization that supports the legal availability of abortions and two health care clinics that perform abortions, filed a class action alleging that petitioners, individuals and organizations that oppose legal abortion, engaged in a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through violence and other unlawful acts. Arguing that petitioners activities amounted in context to extortionate acts that created a pattern of racketeering activity, respondents based their claims on, inter alia , the Hobbs Act, which makes it a federal crime to obstruc[t], dela[y],...
Domino's Pizza, Inc. Vs. McDonald
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald - 04-593 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC. V. MCDONALD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOMINOS PIZZA, INC., et al. v . McDONALD certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04593.Argued December 6, 2005Decided February 22, 2006 Respondent McDonald, a black man, is sole shareholder and president of JWM Investments, Inc. (JWM). He sued petitioners (collectively Dominos) under 42 U. S. C. 1981, alleging, inter alia , that JWM and Dominos had entered into several contracts, that Dominos had broken those contracts because of racial animus toward McDonald, and that the breach had harmed McDonald personally by causing him to suffer monetary damages and damages for emotional injuries. The District Court granted Dominos motion to dismiss on the ground that McDonald could bring no 1981 claim against Dominos because McDonald was party to no contract with Dominos. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit ackn...
Oregon Vs. Guzek
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Oregon v. Guzek - 04-928 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 OREGON V. GUZEK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OREGON v . GUZEK certiorari to the supreme court of oregon No. 04928.Argued December 7, 2005Decided February 22, 2006 At the guilt phase of respondent Guzeks capital murder trial, his mother was one of two witnesses who testified that he had been with her on the night the crime was committed. He was convicted and sentenced to death. Twice, the Oregon Supreme Court vacated the sentence and ordered new sentencing proceedings, but each time Guzek was again sentenced to death. Upon vacating his sentence for a third time, the State Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments provide Guzek a federal constitutional right to introduce live alibi testimony from his mother at the upcoming resentencing proceeding. After this Court granted certiorari, Guzek filed a motion to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. Held: 1. Guzeks motion to dismiss certi...
Dolan Vs. Postal Service
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Dolan v. Postal Service - 04-848 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 DOLAN V. POSTAL SERVICE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DOLAN v . UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 04848.Argued November 7, 2005Decided February 22, 2006 Under the Postal Reorganization Act, the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) applies to tort claims arising out of [Postal Service] activities. 39 U. S. C. 409(c). The FTCA, in turn, waives sovereign immunity in certain cases involving negligence committed by federal employees in the course of their employment, 28 U. S. C. 1346(b)(1), making the United States liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances, 2674. However, the sovereign immunity bar remains as to, inter alia, [a]ny claim arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter. 2680(b). Consequently, the United States may be liable...
Arbaugh Vs. Y and H Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. - 04-944 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 ARBAUGH V. Y & H CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARBAUGH v . Y & H CORP. dba THE MOONLIGHT CAFE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 04944.Argued January 11, 2006Decided February 22, 2006 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any [employee] with respect to sex, 42 U. S. C. 2000e2(a)(1), and defines employer as a person who has fifteen or more employees, 2000e(b). The Acts jurisdictional provision empowers federal courts to adjudicate civil actions brought under Title VII. 2000e5(f)(3). Title VII actions also fit within the Judicial Codes grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to federal courts over actions arising under federal law. 28 U. S. C. 1331. At the time Title VII was enacted, 1331 contained a $10,000 amount-in-controversy threshold, which left Title VII claims below that amount uncovered. Sec...
Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic o ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi - 04-1095 (2006) Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi - 04-1095 (2006) PER CURIAM MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR ARMEDFORCES OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. ELAHI 546 U. S. ____ (2006) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MINISTRY OF DEFENSE AND SUPPORT FOR THEARMED FORCES OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLICOF IRAN v. DARIUSH ELAHI on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04-1095. Decided February 21, 2006 Per Curiam. A private citizen seeks to attach an asset belonging to Iran’s Ministry of Defense in order to help satisfy a judgment for money damages. The question raised is whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA or Act), 28 U. S. C. §1602 et seq. (2000 ed. and Supp. III), forbids that attachment. &nbs...
Lance Vs. Dennis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Lance v. Dennis - 05-555 (2006) Lance v. Dennis - 05-555 (2006) PER CURIAM LANCE V. DENNIS 546 U. S. ____ (2006) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KEITH LANCE, et al., APPELLANTS v. GIGI DENNIS,COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE on appeal from the united states district court for the district of colorado No. 05555.Decided February 21, 2006 Per Curiam. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. 280 , 284 (2005). In this case, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs suit on the ground that they were in privity with a state-court loser. We hold that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar plaintiffs from proceeding, and vacate the District Courts judgment. I This is the latest of several rounds of litigation involving the Sta...
Ash Vs. Tyson Foods, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. - 05-379 (2006) Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. - 05-379 (2006) PER CURIAM ASH V. TYSON FOODS, INC. 546 U. S. ____ (2006) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY ASH et al. v. TYSON FOODS, INC. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 05379.Decided February 21, 2006 Per Curiam. Petitioners Anthony Ash and John Hithon were superintendents at a poultry plant owned and operated by respondent Tyson Foods, Inc. Petitioners, who are African-American, sought promotions to fill two open shiftmanager positions, but two white males were selected instead. Alleging that Tyson had discriminated on account of race, petitioners sued under Rev. Stat. 1977, 42 U. S. C. 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 2000e et seq . A trial proceeded in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. At the close of the plaintiffs evi...
Gonzales Vs. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-21-2006
Gonzales v. O Centro Esprita Beneficente Unio do Vegetal - 04-1084 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 GONZALES V. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTEUNIAO DO VEGETAL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v . O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DOVEGETAL et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 041084.Argued November 1, 2005Decided February 21, 2006 Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) in response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 , where, in upholding a generally applicable law that burdened the sacramental use of peyote, this Court held that the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause does not require judges to engage in a case-by-case assessment of the religious burdens imposed by facially constitutional laws, id., at 883890. Among other things, RFRA prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a persons exerci...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »