Us Supreme Court Court January 2007 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.
Osborn Vs. Haley
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Osborn v. Haley - 05-593 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 OSBORN V. HALEY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OSBORN v . HALEY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05593.Argued October 30, 2006Decided January 22, 2007 The federal statute commonly known as the Westfall Act accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, 28 U. S. C. 2679(b)(1), and empowers the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee sued for wrongful or negligent conduct was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, 2679(d)(1), (2). Upon such certification, the United States is substituted as defendant in place of the employee, and the action is thereafter governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act. If the action commenced in state court, the Westfall Act calls for its removal to a federal district court, ...
Jones Vs. Bock
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Jones v. Bock - 05-7058 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 JONES V. BOCK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JONES v . BOCK, WARDEN, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 057058.Argued October 30, 2006Decided January 22, 2007* The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), in order to address the large number of prisoner complaints filed in federal court, mandates early judicial screening of prisoner complaints and requires prisoners to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. 42 U. S. C. 1997e(a). Petitioners, inmates in Michigan prisons, filed grievances using the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) grievance process. After unsuccessfully seeking redress through that process, petitioner Jones filed a 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit against six prison officials. The District Court dismissed on the merits as to four of them and as to two others found that Jones had failed to adequately plead exhaustion in his complaint....
Cunningham Vs. California
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-22-2007
Cunningham v. California - 05-6551 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CUNNINGHAM v . CALIFORNIA certiorari to the court of appeal of california, first appellate district No. 056551.Argued October 11, 2006Decided January 22, 2007 Petitioner Cunningham was tried and convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14. Under Californias determinate sentencing law (DSL), that offense is punishable by one of three precise terms of imprisonment: a lower term sentence of 6 years, a middle term sentence of 12 years, or an upper term sentence of 16 years. The DSL obliged the trial judge to sentence Cunningham to the 12-year middle term unless the judge found one or more additional circumstances in aggravation. Court Rules adopted to implement the DSL define circumstances in aggravation as facts that justify the upper term. Those facts, the Rules provide, must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Based on a...
Gonzales Vs. Duenas-alvare
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-17-2007
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvare - 05-1629 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v . DUENAS-ALVAREZ certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 051629.Argued December 5, 2006Decided January 17, 2007 Respondent, a permanent resident alien, was convicted of violating Cal. Veh. Code Ann. 10851(a), under which [a]ny person who drives or takes a vehicle not his or her own, without the consent of the owner , or any person who is a party or an accessory to or an accomplice in the driving or unauthorized taking or stealing, is guilty of a public offense. (Emphasis added.) The Federal Government then sought to remove respondent from the United States as an alien convicted of a theft offense for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year, 8 U. S. C. 1101(a)(43)(G); 1227(a)(2)(A). The Government claimed that the California conviction qualified as such a thef...
Norfolk Southern R. Co. Vs. Sorrell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-10-2007
Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. Sorrell - 05-746 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 NORFOLK SOUTHERN R. CO. V. SORRELL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v . SORRELL certiorari to the court of appeals of missouri No. 05746.Argued October 10, 2006Decided January 10, 2007 Respondent Sorrell was injured while working for the petitioner railroad (Norfolk), and sought damages for his injuries in Missouri state court under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), which makes a railroad liable for an employees injuries resulting in whole or in part from [the railroads] negligence, Section 1. FELA reduces any damages awarded to an employee in proportion to the amount [of negligence] attributable to the employee, Section 3. Missouris jury instructions apply different causation standards to railroad negligence and employee contributory negligence in FELA actions. An employee will be found contributorily negligent if his negligence directly contributed t...
United States Vs. Resendiz-ponce
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce - 05-998 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . RESENDIZ-PONCE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 05998.Argued October 10, 2006Decided January 9, 2007 Respondent, a Mexican citizen, was charged with violating 8 U. S. C. 1326(a) by attempting to reenter the United States after having been deported. The District Court denied his motion to have the indictment dismissed because it did not allege a specific overt act that he committed in seeking reentry. In reversing, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the indictments omission of an overt act was a fatal flaw not subject to harmless-error review. Held: Respondents indictment was not defective, and, thus, this Court need not reach the harmless-error issue. While the Government does not dispute that respondent cannot be guilty of attempted reentry under 1326(a) unless he committed ...
Medimmune, Inc. Vs. Genentech, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. - 05-608 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 MEDIMMUNE, INC. V. GENENTECH, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIMMUNE, INC. v . GENENTECH, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05608.Argued October 4, 2006Decided January 9, 2007 After the parties entered into a patent license agreement covering, inter alia , respondents then-pending patent application, the application matured into the Cabilly II patent. Respondent Genentech, Inc., sent petitioner a letter stating that Synagis, a drug petitioner manufactured, was covered by the Cabilly II patent and that petitioner owed royalties under the agreement. Although petitioner believed no royalties were due because the patent was invalid and unenforceable and because Synagis did not infringe the patents claims, petitioner considered the letter a clear threat to enforce the patent, terminate the license agreement, and bring a patent infring...
Burton Vs. Stewart
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jan-09-2007
Burton v. Stewart - 05-9222 (2007) Burton v. Stewart - 05-9222 (2007) PER CURIAM BURTON V. STEWART 549 U. S. ____ (2007) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LONNIE LEE BURTON, PETITIONER v. BELINDASTEWART, SUPERINTENDENT, STAFFORDCREEK CORRECTIONS CENTER on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the ninth circuit [January 9, 2007] Per Curiam. We granted certiorari in this case, 547 U. S. ___ (2006), to determine whether our decision in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U. S. 296 (2004), announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applies retroactively on collateral review. We do not answer these questions, however, because petitionera state prisoner seeking postconviction relief from the federal courtsfailed to comply with the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U. S. C. 2244(b). That failure deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear his claims. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand with instructions to direct...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›