Us Supreme Court Court February 2010 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.
Florida Vs. Powell
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-24-2010
Florida v. Powell - 08-1175 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 FLORIDA V. POWELL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FLORIDA v . POWELL certiorari to the supreme court of florida No. 081175.Argued December 7, 2009Decided February 23, 2010 In a pathmarking decision, Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 , 471, this Court held that an individual must be clearly informed, prior to custodial questioning, that he has, among other rights, the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation. After arresting respondent Powell, but before questioning him, Tampa Police read him their standard Miranda form, stating, inter alia : You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions and [y]ou have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview. Powell then admitted he owned a handgun found in a police search. He was charged with possession of a weapon by a convicted felon in violatio...
Reed Elsevier, Inc. Vs. Muchnick
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick - 08-103 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 REED ELSEVIER, INC. V. MUCHNICK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES REED ELSEVIER, INC., et al. v . MUCHNICK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 08103.Argued October 7, 2009Decided March 2, 2010 The Copyright Act (Act) generally requires copyright holders to register their works before suing for copyright infringement. 17 U. S. C. A. 411(a). The complaint in this consolidated, class-action copyright infringement suit alleged that the named plaintiffs each own at least one copyright, typically in a freelance article written for a newspaper or magazine, that they had registered in accordance with 411(a). The class, however, included both authors who had registered their works and authors who had not. The parties moved the District Court to certify a settlement class and approve a settlement agreement. The District Court did so over the objections of some fr...
Hertz Corp. Vs. Friend
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-2010
Hertz Corp. v. Friend - 08-1107 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 HERTZ CORP. V. FRIEND SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HERTZ CORP. v . FRIEND et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 081107.Argued November 10, 2009Decided February 23, 2010 Respondents, California citizens, sued petitioner Hertz Corporation in a California state court for claimed state-law violations. Hertz sought removal to the Federal District Court under 28 U. S. C. 1332(d)(2), 1441(a), claiming that because it and respondents were citizens of different States, 1332(a)(1), (c)(1), the federal court possessed diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. Respondents, however, claimed that Hertz was a California citizen, like themselves, and that, hence, diversity jurisdiction was lacking under 1332(c)(1), which provides that a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of ...
Thaler Vs. Haynes
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Thaler v. Haynes - 09-273 (2010) Thaler v. Haynes - 09-273 (2010) PER CURIAM THALER V. HAYNES 559 U. S. ____ (2010) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENTOF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTI-TUTIONS DIVISION v. ANTHONY CARDELLHAYNES on petition for writ of certiorari to the unitedstates court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 09273.Decided February 22, 2010 Per Curiam. This case presents the question whether any decision of this Court clearly establishes that a judge, in ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U. S. 79 (1986), must reject a demeanor-based explanation for the challenge unless the judge personally observed and recalls the aspect of the prospective jurors demeanor on which the explanation is based. The Court of Appeals appears to have concluded that either Batson itself or Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U. S. 472 (2008), clearly established such a rule, but the Court ...
Wilkins Vs. Gaddy
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Wilkins v. Gaddy - 08-10914 (2010) Wilkins v. Gaddy - 08-10914 (2010) PER CURIAM WILKINS V. GADDY 559 U. S. ____ (2010) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAMEY L. WILKINS v. OFFICER GADDY on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 0810914.Decided February 22, 2010 Per Curiam. In Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U. S. 1 , 4 (1992), this Court held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment [even] when the inmate does not suffer serious injury. In this case, the District Court dismissed a prisoners excessive force claim based entirely on its determination that his injuries were de minimis . Because the District Courts approach, affirmed on appeal, is at odds with Hudson s direction to decide excessive force claims based on the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment is rever...
Maryland Vs. Shatzer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2010
Maryland v. Shatzer - 08-680 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 MARYLAND V. SHATZER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARYLAND v . SHATZER certiorari to the court of appeals of maryland No. 08680.Argued October 5, 2009Decided February 24, 2010 In 2003, a police detective tried to question respondent Shatzer, who was incarcerated at a Maryland prison pursuant to a prior conviction, about allegations that he had sexually abused his son. Shatzer invoked his Miranda right to have counsel present during interrogation, so the detective terminated the interview. Shatzer was released back into the general prison population, and the investigation was closed. Another detective reopened the investigation in 2006 and attempted to interrogate Shatzer, who was still incarcerated. Shatzer waived his Miranda rights and made inculpatory statements. The trial court refused to suppress those statements, reasoning that Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U. S. 477 , did not apply because Shatze...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›