Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
Cbocs West, Inc. Vs. Humphries
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-2008
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries - 06-1431 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 CBOCS WEST, INC. V. HUMPHRIES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CBOCS WEST, INC. v . HUMPHRIES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 061431.Argued February 20, 2008Decided May 27, 2008 Claiming that petitioner CBOCS West, Inc., dismissed him because he is black and because he complained to managers that a black co-employee was also dismissed for race-based reasons, respondent Humphries filed suit charging that CBOCS actions violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U. S. C. 1981, the latter of which gives [a]ll persons the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens. The District Court dismissed the Title VII claims for failure to timely pay filing fees and granted CBOCS summary judgment on the 1981 claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the direct discrimination claim, but remanded for a trial on Humphries 1...
Gomez-perez Vs. Potter
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-2008
Gomez-Perez v. Potter - 06-1321 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 GOMEZ-PEREZ V. POTTER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GOMEZ-PEREZ v . POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 061321.Argued February 19, 2008Decided May 27, 2008 Petitioner, a 45-year-old postal worker, filed suit claiming that her employer had violated the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U. S. C. 633a(a)which requires that [a]ll personnel actions affecting employees at least 40 years of age be made free from any discrimination based on ageby subjecting her to various forms of retaliation after she filed an administrative ADEA complaint. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed on the ground that 633a(a)s prohibition of discrimination based on age does not cover retaliation. Held: Section 633a(a) prohibits retaliation against a federal employee...
Riley Vs. Kennedy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-27-2008
Riley v. Kennedy - 07-77 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 RILEY V. KENNEDY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RILEY, GOVERNOR OF ALABAMA v . KENNEDY et al. appeal from the united states district court for the middle district of alabama No. 0777.Argued March 24, 2008Decided May 27, 2008 Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) requires covered jurisdictions to obtain preclearance from the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Department of Justice (DOJ) before enact[ing] or seek[ing] to administer any changes in their practices or procedures affecting voting. Alabama is a covered jurisdiction. As of its November 1, 1964 coverage date, state law provided that midterm vacancies on county commissions were to be filled by gubernatorial appointment. In 1985, the state legislature passed, and the DOJ precleared, a local law providing that Mobile County Commission midterm vacancies would be filled by special election rather than gubernatorial appointmen...
Department of Revenue of Ky. Vs. Davis
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-2008
Department of Revenue of Ky. v. Davis - 06-666 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KY. V. DAVIS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF KENTUCKY et al. v . DAVIS et ux. certiorari to the court of appeals of kentucky No. 06666.Argued November 5, 2007Decided May 19, 2008 Kentucky exempts from state income taxes interest on bonds issued by it or its political subdivisions but not on bonds issued by other States and their subdivisions. After paying state income tax on out-of-state municipal bonds, respondents sued petitioners (hereinafter Kentucky) for a refund, claiming that Kentuckys differential tax impermissibly discriminated against interstate commerce. The trial court ruled for Kentucky, relying in part on a market-participation exception to the dormant Commerce Clause limit on state regulation. The State Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Kentuckys scheme ran afoul of the Commerce Clause. Held: The judgment is reversed, ...
United States Vs. Rodriquez
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-2008
United States v. Rodriquez - 06-1646 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . RODRIQUEZ certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 061646.Argued January 15, 2008Decided May 19, 2008 Upon respondents federal conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U. S. C. 922(g)(1), he had three prior Washington state convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. At the time of those convictions, Washington law specified a maximum 5-year prison term for the first such offense. A recidivist provision, however, set a 10-year ceiling for a second or subsequent offense, and the state court had sentenced respondent to concurrent 48-month sentences on each count. The Government contended in the federal felon-in-possession case that respondent should be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 924(e), which sets a 15-year minimum sentence [i]n the case...
United States Vs. Ressam
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-2008
United States v. Ressam - 07-455 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 UNITED STATES V. RESSAM SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . RESSAM certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 07455.Argued March 25, 2008Decided May 19, 2008 After respondent gave false information on his customs form while attempting to enter the United States, a search of his car revealed explosives that he intended to detonate in this country. He was convicted of, inter alia, (1) feloniously making a false statement to a customs official in violation of 18 U. S. C. 1001, and (2) carr[ying] an explosive during the commission of that felony in violation of 844(h)(2). The Ninth Circuit set aside the latter conviction because it read during in 844(h)(2) to include a requirement that the explosive be carried in relation to the underlying felony. Held: Since respondent was carrying explosives when he violated 1001, he was carrying them during the commission ...
United States Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-19-2008
United States v. Williams - 06-694 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . WILLIAMS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 06694.Argued October 30, 2007Decided May 19, 2008 After this Court found facially overbroad a federal statutory provision criminalizing the possession and distribution of material pandered as child pornography, regardless of whether it actually was that, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition , 535 U. S. 234 , Congress passed the pandering and solicitation provision at issue, 18 U. S. C. 2252A(a)(3)(B). Respondent Williams pleaded guilty to this offense and others, but reserved the right to challenge his pandering convictions constitutionality. The District Court rejected his challenge, but the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding the statute both overbroad under the First Amendment and impermissibly vague under the Due Process Clause. Held: ...
Gonzalez Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-12-2008
Gonzalez v. United States - 06-11612 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALEZ v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 0611612.Argued January 8, 2008Decided May 12, 2008 If the parties consent, a federal magistrate judge may preside over the voir dire and jury selection in a felony criminal trial. Peretz v. United States , 501 U. S. 923 , 933. Before petitioners federal trial on felony drug charges, his counsel consented to the Magistrate Judges presiding over jury selection. Petitioner was not asked for his own consent. After the Magistrate Judge supervised voir dire without objection, a District Judge presided at trial, and the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts. Petitioner contended for the first time on appeal that it was error not to obtain his own consent to the Magistrate Judges voir dire role. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convict...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›