Us Supreme Court Court April 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.
Hui Vs. Castaneda
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-28-2010
Hui v. Castaneda - 08-1529 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 HUI V. CASTANEDA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HUI et al. v . CASTANEDA, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF CASTANEDA, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 081529.Argued March 2, 2010Decided May 3, 2010 While detained by immigration authorities, Francisco Castenada persistently sought treatment for a bleeding, suppurating lesion. Although a U. S. Public Health Service (PHS) physicians assistant and three outside specialists repeatedly advised that Castaneda urgently needed a biopsy, petitionersa PHS physician and a commissioned PHS officerdenied the request. After Castaneda was released from custody, tests confirmed that he had metastatic cancer. He then filed this suit, raising medical negligence claims against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. 1346, 26712680, and constitutional claims against petitioners under Biven...
Merck and Co. Vs. Reynolds
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds - 08-905 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 MERCK & CO. V. REYNOLDS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MERCK & CO., INC., et al. v . REYNOLDS et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 08905.Argued November 30, 2009Decided April 27, 2010 On November 6, 2003, respondent investors filed a securities fraud action under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that petitioner Merck & Co. knowingly misrepresented the heart-attack risks associated with its drug Vioxx. A securities fraud complaint is timely if filed no more than 2 years after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation or 5 years after the violation. 28 U. S. C. 1658(b). The District Court dismissed the complaint as untimely because the plaintiffs should have been alerted to the possibility of Mercks misrepresentations prior to November 2001, more than 2 years before the complaint was filed, and they had failed to undertake a r...
Salazar Vs. Buono
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-27-2010
Salazar v. Buono - 08-472 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 SALAZAR V. BUONO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SALAZAR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v . BUONO certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 08472.Argued October 7, 2009Decided April 28, 2010 In 1934, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) placed a Latin cross on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve (Preserve) to honor American soldiers who died in World War I. Claiming to be offended by a religious symbols presence on federal land, respondent Buono, a regular visitor to the Preserve, filed this suit alleging a violation of the First Amendments Establishment Clause and seeking an injunction requiring the Government to remove the cross. In the litigations first stage (Buono I) , the District Court found that Buono had standing to sue and, concluding that the presence of the cross on federal land conveyed an impression of governmental endorsement of religion, se...
Perdue Vs. Kenny A.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
Perdue v. Kenny A. - 08-970 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 PERDUE V. KENNY A. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PERDUE, GOVERNOR OF GEORGIA, et al. v . KENNY A., by his next friend WINN, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 08970.Argued October 14, 2009Decided April 21, 2010 Title 42 U. S. C. 1988 authorizes courts to award a reasonable attorneys fee for prevailing parties in civil rights actions. Half of respondents $14 million fee request was based on their calculation of the lodestar, i.e., the number of hours the attorneys and their employees worked multiplied by the hourly rates prevailing in the community. The other half represented a fee enhancement for superior work and results, supported by affidavits claiming that the lodestar would be insufficient to induce lawyers of comparable skill and experience to litigate this case. Awarding fees of about $10.5 million, the District Court found that the proposed hourly r...
Jerman Vs. Carlisle, Mcnellie, Rini, Kramer and Ulrich Lpa
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA - 08-1200 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 JERMAN V. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI,KRAMER & ULRICH LPA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JERMAN v . CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, KRAMER & ULRICH LPA et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 081200.Argued January 13, 2010Decided April 21, 2010 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. 1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on debt collector[s] for certain prohibited debt collection practices. A debt collector who fails to comply with any [FDCPA] provision with respect to any person is liable to such person for actual damage[s], costs, a reasonable attorneys fee as determined by the court, and statutory additional damages. 1692k(a). In addition, violations of the FDCPA are deemed unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 41 et seq ., which is enforced by the Federal Trade ...
Stolt-nielsen S. A. Vs. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-21-2010
Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. AnimalFeeds Intl Corp. - 08-1198 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. V. ANIMALFEEDS INT'L CORP. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STOLT-NIELSEN S. A. et al. v . ANIMALFEEDS INTERNATIONAL CORP. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 081198.Argued December 9, 2009Decided April 27, 2010 Petitioner shipping companies serve much of the world market for parcel tankersseagoing vessels with compartments that are separately chartered to customers, such as respondent (AnimalFeeds), who wish to ship liquids in small quantities. AnimalFeeds ships its goods pursuant to a standard contract known in the maritime trade as a charter party. The charter party that AnimalFeeds uses contains an arbitration clause. AnimalFeeds brought a class action antitrust suit against petitioners for price fixing, and that suit was consolidated with similar suits brought by other charterers, including one in which the Second ...
Conkright Vs. Frommert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
Conkright v. Frommert - 08-810 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CONKRIGHT et al. v . FROMMERT et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 08810.Argued January 20, 2010Decided April 21, 2010 Petitioners are Xerox Corporations pension plan (Plan) and the Plans current and former administrators (Plan Administrator). Respondents are employees who left Xerox in the 1980s, received lump-sum distributions of retirement benefits earned up to that point, and were later rehired. To account for the past distributions when calculating respondents current benefits, the Plan Administrator initially interpreted the Plan to call for an approach that has come to be known as the phantom account method. Respondents challenged that method in an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The District Court granted summary judgment for the Plan, but the Second Circuit v...
Conkright Vs. Frommert
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Apr-20-2010
Conkright v. Frommert - 08-810 (2010) OPINION IN CHAMBERS CONKRIGHT V. FROMMERT 556 U. S. ____ (2009) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 08-810 (08A884) SALLY L. CONKRIGHT et al. v. PAUL J. FROMMERT et al. on application for stay [April 30, 2009] Justice Ginsburg, Circuit Justice. Sally L. Conkright, Administrator of the Xerox Corporation Pension Plan, et al., have reapplied for a stay of the mandate of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In their initial application, filed October 16, 2008, the applicants sought a stay pending the filing and disposition of their petition for certiorari. The Second Circuits decision in their case, 535 F. 3d 111 (2008), they asserted, was erroneous, created a Circuit conflict, and would cause irreparable harm if given effect. Without a stay, the applicants explained, they would be required to make additional payments to dozens of pension plan beneficiariesmoney that could prove difficult to recoup if this Co...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›