Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
Ledbetter Vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-29-2007
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. - 05-1074 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 LEDBETTER V. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEDBETTER v . GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 051074.Argued November 27, 2006Decided May 29, 2007 During most of the time that petitioner Ledbetter was employed by respondent Goodyear, salaried employees at the plant where she worked were given or denied raises based on performance evaluations. Ledbetter submitted a questionnaire to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in March 1998 and a formal EEOC charge in July 1998. After her November 1998 retirement, she filed suit, asserting, among other things, a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court allowed her Title VII pay discrimination claim to proceed to trial. There, Ledbetter alleged that several supervisors had in the pas...
Winkelman Vs. Parma City School Dist.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist. - 05-983 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WINKELMAN, a minor, by and through his parents and legal guardians, WINKELMAN et ux., et al. v . PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 05983.Argued February 27, 2007Decided May 21, 2007 Respondent school district receives federal funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), so it must provide children such as petitioner Winkelmans son Jacob a free appropriate public education, 20 U. S. C. 1400(d)(1)(A), in accordance with an individualized education program (IEP) that the parents, school officials, and others develop as members of the students IEP Team. Regarding Jacobs IEP as deficient, the Winkelmans unsuccessfully appealed through IDEAs administrative review process. Proceeding without counsel, they then filed a federal-court com...
Bell Atlantic Corp. Vs. Twombly
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly - 05-1126 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BELL ATLANTIC CORP. et al. v . TWOMBLY et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 051126.Argued November 27, 2006Decided May 21, 2007 The 1984 divestiture of the American Telephone & Telegraph Companys (AT&T;) local telephone business left a system of regional service monopolies, sometimes called Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), and a separate long-distance market from which the ILECs were excluded. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 withdrew approval of the ILECs monopolies, fundamentally restructur[ing] local telephone markets and subject[ing] [ILECs] to a host of duties intended to facilitate market entry. AT&T; Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd. , 525 U. S. 366 , 371. It also authorized them to enter the long-distance market. Central to the [new] scheme [was each ILECs] obligation t...
Office of Sen. Mark Dayton Vs. Hanson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson - 06-618 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON v . HANSON appeal from the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 06618.Argued April 24, 2007Decided May 21, 2007 After his discharge from employment with former Senator Dayton, appellee Hanson sued appellant, the Senators office (Office), invoking the District Courts jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Act). The court denied a motion to dismiss based on a claim of immunity under the Constitutions Speech or Debate Clause, and the D. C. Circuit affirmed. The Office then sought to appeal under 412 of the Act, which authorizes review in this Court of any judgment upon the constitutionality of any provision of the Act. Held: This Court lacks jurisdiction under 412 because neither the dismissal denial nor the D. C. Circuits affirmance...
Hinck Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Hinck v. United States - 06-376 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 HINCK V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HINCK et ux. v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 06376.Argued April 23, 2007Decided May 21, 2007 A 1986 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code permits the Treasury Secretary to abate interest that accrues on unpaid federal income taxes if the interest assessment is attributable to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) error or delay. 26 U. S. C. 6404(e)(1). Subsequently, the federal courts uniformly held that the Secretarys decision not to abate was not subject to judicial review. In 1996, Congress added what is now 6404(h), which states that the Tax Court has jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretarys failure to abate was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement, if such action i...
Roper Vs. Weaver
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Roper v. Weaver - 06-313 (2007) Roper v. Weaver - 06-313 (2007) PER CURIAM ROPER V. WEAVER 550 U. S. ____ (2007) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DON ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. WILLIAM WEAVER on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit [May 21, 2007] Per Curiam. We granted certiorari in this case, 549 U. S. ___ (2006), to decide whether the Court of Appeals had exceeded its authority under 28 U. S. C. 2254(d)(1) by setting aside a capital sentence on the ground that the prosecutors closing statement was unfairly inflammatory. Weaver v. Bowersox , 438 F. 3d 832, 841 (CA8 2006). Our primary concern was whether the Court of Appeals application of the more stringent standard of review mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214, was consistent with our interpretation of that statute. Cf. Carey v. Musladin , 549 U. S. ___ (2006). We are...
Los Angeles County Vs. Rettele
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-21-2007
Los Angeles County v. Rettele - 06-605 (2007) Los Angeles County v. Rettele - 06-605 (2007) PER CURIAM LOS ANGELES COUNTY V. RETTELE 550 U. S. ____ (2007) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, et al. v. MAX RETTELE et al. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 06605.Decided May 21, 2007 Per Curiam. Deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department obtained a valid warrant to search a house, but they were unaware that the suspects being sought had moved out three months earlier. When the deputies searched the house, they found in a bedroom two residents who were of a different race than the suspects. The deputies ordered these innocent residents, who had been sleeping unclothed, out of bed. The deputies required them to stand for a few minutes before allowing them to dress. The residents brought suit under Rev. Stat. 1979, 42 U. S. C. 1983, naming the deputies and other p...
Schriro Vs. Landrigan
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-14-2007
Schriro v. Landrigan - 05-1575 (2007) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2006 SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SCHRIRO, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v . LANDRIGAN aka HILL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 051575.Argued January 9, 2007Decided May 14, 2007 Respondent Landrigan refused to allow his counsel to present the testimony of his ex-wife and birth mother as mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearing for a felony-murder conviction. He also interrupted as counsel tried to proffer other evidence, and he told the Arizona trial judge he did not wish to present any mitigating evidence and to bring on the death penalty. The court sentenced him to death, and the sentence was affirmed. The state postconviction court rejected Landrigans claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct further investigation into mitigating circumstances, finding that he had instructed counsel at sentencing not to p...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›