Us Supreme Court Court February 2008 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.
Federal Express Corp. Vs. Holowecki
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-27-2008
Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki - 06-1322 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. V. HOLOWECKI SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. v . HOLOWECKI et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 061322.Argued November 6, 2007Decided February 27, 2008 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) requires that [n]o civil action be commenced until 60 days after a charge alleging unlawful discrimination has been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 29 U. S. C. 626(d), but does not define the term charge. After petitioner delivery service (FedEx) initiated programs tying its couriers compensation and continued employment to certain performance benchmarks, respondent Kennedy (hereinafter respondent), a FedEx courier over age 40, filed with the EEOC, in December 2001, a Form 283 Intake Questionnaire and a detailed affidavit supporting her contention that the FedEx progra...
Sprint/United Management Co. Vs. Mendelsohn
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2008
Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn - 06-1221 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. v . MENDELSOHN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit No. 061221.Argued December 3, 2007Decided February 26, 2008 In respondent Mendelsohns age discrimination case, petitioner Sprint moved in limine to exclude the testimony of former employees alleging discrimination by supervisors who had no role in the employment decision Mendelsohn challenged, on the ground that such evidence was irrelevant to the cases central issue, see Fed. Rules Evid. 401, 402, and unduly prejudicial, see Rule 403. Granting the motion, the District Court excluded evidence of discrimination against those not similarly situated to Mendelsohn. The Tenth Circuit treated that order as applying a per se rule that evidence from employees of other supervisors is irrelevant in age di...
Larue Vs. Dewolff, Boberg and Associates, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. - 06-856 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 LARUE V. DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LaRUE v . DeWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 06856.Argued November 26, 2007Decided February 20, 2008 Petitioner, a participant in a defined contribution pension plan, alleged that the plan administrators failure to follow petitioners investment directions depleted his interest in the plan by approximately $150,000 and amounted to a breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The District Court granted respondents judgment on the pleadings, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. Relying on Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134 , the Circuit held that ERISA 502(a)(2) provides remedies only for entire plans, not for individuals. Held: Although 502(a)(2) does n...
Danforth Vs. Minnesota
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Danforth v. Minnesota - 06-8273 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DANFORTH v . MINNESOTA certiorari to the supreme court of minnesota No. 068273.Argued October 31, 2007Decided February 20, 2008 After this Court announced a new rule for evaluating the reliability of testimonial statements in criminal cases, see Crawford v. Washington , 541 U. S. 36 , 6869, petitioner sought state postconviction relief, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because admitting the victims taped interview at his trial violated Crawford s rule. The Minnesota trial and appeals courts concluded that Crawford did not apply retroactively under Teague v. Lane , 489 U. S. 288 . The State Supreme Court agreed, and also concluded that state courts are not free to give a decision of this Court announcing a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure broader retroactive application than that given by this Court. Held: Teague d...
Riegel Vs. Medtronic, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. - 06-179 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 RIEGEL V. MEDTRONIC, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RIEGEL, individually and as administrator ofESTATE OF RIEGEL v . MEDTRONIC, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 06179.Argued December 4, 2007Decided February 20, 2008 The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) created a scheme of federal safety oversight for medical devices while sweeping back state oversight schemes. The statute provides that a State shall not establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement (1) which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under [federal law] to the device, and (2) which relates to the safety or effectiveness of the device or to any other matter included in a requirement applicable to the device under relevant federal law. 21 U. S. C. 360k(a). The MDA calls for federal oversight of medical devi...
Preston Vs. Ferrer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Preston v. Ferrer - 06-1463 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 PRESTON V. FERRER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PRESTON v . FERRER certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district No. 061463.Argued January 14, 2008Decided February 20, 2008 A contract between respondent Ferrer, who appears on television as Judge Alex, and petitioner Preston, an entertainment industry attorney, requires arbitration of any dispute relating to the [contracts] terms or the breach, validity, or legality thereof in accordance with [American Arbitration Association (AAA)] rules. Preston invoked this provision to gain fees allegedly due under the contract. Ferrer thereupon petitioned the California Labor Commissioner (Labor Commissioner) for a determination that the contract was invalid and unenforceable under Californias Talent Agencies Act (TAA) because Preston had acted as a talent agent without the required license. After the Labor Commissioners hearing officer de...
Rowe Vs. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-20-2008
Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn. - 06-457 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 ROWE V. NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ROWE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MAINE v . NEW HAMPSHIRE MOTOR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 06457.Argued November 28, 2007Decided February 20, 2008 Although a provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 forbids States to enact or enforce a law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier, 49 U. S. C. 14501(c)(1), see also 41713(b)(4)(a), Maine adopted a law which, inter alia, (1) specifies that a state-licensed tobacco shipper must utilize a delivery company that provides a recipient-verification service that confirms the buyer is of legal age, and (2) adds, in prohibiting unlicensed tobacco shipments into the State, that a person is deemed to know that a package contains tobacco if it is marked as or...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›