Us Supreme Court Court March 2009 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.
Rivera Vs. Illinois
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Rivera v. Illinois - 07-9995 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RIVERA v . ILLINOIS certiorari to the supreme court of illinois No. 079995.Argued February 23, 2009Decided March 31, 2009 During jury selection in petitioner Riveras state-court first-degree murder trial, his counsel sought to use a peremptory challenge to excuse venire member Deloris Gomez. Rivera had already exercised two peremptory challenges against women, one of whom was African-American. It is conceded that there was no basis to challenge Gomez for cause. She met the requirements for jury service, and Rivera does not contend that she was biased against him. The trial court rejected the peremptory challenge out of concern that it was discriminatory. Under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U. S. 79 , and later decisions applying Batson , parties are constitutionally prohibited from exercising peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race, ethnicity...
Philip Morris Usa Inc. Vs. Williams
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams - 07-1216 (2009) Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams - 07-1216 (2009) 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 556 U. S. ____ (2009) 556 U. S. ____ (2009) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 07-1216 PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., PETITIONER v. MAYOLAWILLIAMS, personal representative of the ES-TATE OF JESSE D. WILLIAMS, DECEASED on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of oregon [March 31, 2009] Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered. ...
Hawaii Vs. Office of Hawaiian Affairs
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-31-2009
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs - 07-1372 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HAWAII V. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAWAII et al. v . OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS et al. certiorari to the supreme court of hawaii No. 071372.Argued February 25, 2009Decided March 31, 2009 After the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, Congress annexed the Territory of Hawaii pursuant to the Newlands Resolution, under which Hawaii ceded to the United States the absolute fee and ownership of all public, government, and crown lands. In 1959, the Admission Act made Hawaii a State, granting it all the public lands held by the United States, 5(b), and requiring these lands, together with the proceeds from [their] sale , [to] be held by [the] State as a public trust, 5(f). Hawaii state law also authorizes the State to use or sell the ceded lands, provided the proceeds are held in trust for Hawaiian citizens. In 1993, Congress joint Apology Resolution apolog...
Puckett Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-25-2009
Puckett v. United States - 07-9712 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PUCKETT v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 079712.Argued January 14, 2009Decided March 25, 2009 In exchange for petitioner Pucketts guilty plea, the Government agreed to request (1) a three-level reduction in his offense level under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on the ground that he had accepted responsibility for his crimes; and (2) a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. The District Court accepted the plea, but before Puckett was sentenced he assisted in another crime. As a result, the Government opposed any reduction in Pucketts offense level, and the District Court denied the three-level reduction. On appeal, Puckett raised for the first time the argument that by backing away from its reduction request, the Government had broken the plea agreement. The Fifth ...
Knowles Vs. Mirzayance
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-24-2009
Knowles v. Mirzayance - 07-1315 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KNOWLES, WARDEN v . MIRZAYANCE certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 071315.Argued January 13, 2009Decided March 24, 2009 Respondent Mirzayance entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) at his state-court murder trial. During the guilt phase, he sought to avoid a conviction for first-degree murder and instead obtain a second-degree murder verdict by presenting medical testimony that he was insane at the time of the crime and was, therefore, incapable of the necessary premeditation or deliberation. The jury nevertheless convicted him of first-degree murder. After the trials NGI phase was scheduled, Mirzayance accepted his counsels recommendation to abandon the insanity plea. Counsel believed that a defense verdict was unlikely because the jury had just rejected medical testimony similar to...
Vaden Vs. Discover Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Vaden v. Discover Bank - 07-773 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 VADEN V. DISCOVER BANK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VADEN v . DISCOVER BANK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 07773.Argued October 6, 2008Decided March 9, 2009 Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA or Act), 9 U. S. C. 4, authorizes a United States district court to entertain a petition to compel arbitration if the court would have jurisdiction, save for [the arbitration] agreement, over a suit arising out of the controversy between the parties. Discover Banks servicing affiliate filed a complaint in Maryland state court to recover past-due charges from one of its credit cardholders, petitioner Vaden. Discovers pleading presented a claim arising solely under state law. Vaden answered and counterclaimed, alleging that Discovers finance charges, interest, and late fees violated state law. Invoking an arbitration clause in its cardholder agreem...
Bartlett Vs. Strickland
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Bartlett v. Strickland - 07-689 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 BARTLETT V. STRICKLAND SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BARTLETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al. v . STRICKLAND et al. certiorari to the supreme court of north carolina No. 07689.Argued October 14, 2008Decided March 9, 2009 Despite the North Carolina Constitutions Whole County Provision prohibiting the General Assembly from dividing counties when drawing its own legislative districts, in 1991 the legislature drew House District 18 to include portions of four counties, including Pender County, for the asserted purpose of satisfying 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. At that time, District 18 was a geographically compact majority-minority district. By the time the district was to be redrawn in 2003, the African-American voting-age population in District 18 had fallen below 50 percent. Rather than redrawing the district to keep Pender County whole, the legislators split ...
Vermont Vs. Brillon
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-09-2009
Vermont v. Brillon - 08-88 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 VERMONT V. BRILLON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES VERMONT v . BRILLON certiorari to the supreme court of vermont No. 0888.Argued January 13, 2009Decided March 9, 2009 In July 2001, respondent Brillon was arrested on felony domestic assault and habitual offender charges. Nearly three years later, in June 2004, he was tried by jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to 12 to 20 years in prison. During the time between his arrest and his trial, at least six different attorneys were appointed to represent him. Brillon fired his first attorney, who served from July 2001 to February 2002. His third lawyer, who served from March 2002 until June 2002, was allowed to withdraw when he reported that Brillon had threatened his life. His fourth lawyer served from June 2002 until November 2002, when the trial court released him from the case. His fifth lawyer, assigned two months later, withdrew in April 2003. Four mon...
Wyeth Vs. Levine
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-2009
Wyeth v. Levine - 06-1249 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 WYETH V. LEVINE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WYETH v . LEVINE certiorari to the supreme court of vermont No. 061249.Argued November 3, 2008Decided March 4, 2009 Petitioner Wyeth manufactures the antinausea drug Phenergan. After a clinician injected respondent Levine with Phenergan by the IV-push method, whereby a drug is injected directly into a patients vein, the drug entered Levines artery, she developed gangrene, and doctors amputated her forearm. Levine brought a state-law damages action, alleging, inter alia, that Wyeth had failed to provide an adequate warning about the significant risks of administering Phenergan by the IV-push method. The Vermont jury determined that Levines injury would not have occurred if Phenergans label included an adequate warning, and it awarded damages for her pain and suffering, substantial medical expenses, and loss of her livelihood as a professional musician. Declining t...
Negusie Vs. Holder
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-03-2009
Negusie v. Holder - 07-499 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 NEGUSIE V. HOLDER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEGUSIE v . HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 07499.Argued November 5, 2008Decided March 3, 2009 The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars an alien from obtaining refugee status in this country if he assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U. S. C. 1101(a)(42). This so-called persecutor bar applies to those seeking asylum or withholding of removal, but does not disqualify an alien from receiving a temporary deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). During the time petitioner, an Eritrean national, was forced to work as a prison guard in that country, the prisoners he guarded ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »