Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
United States Vs. Marcus
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
United States v. Marcus - 08-1341 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 UNITED STATES V. MARCUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . MARCUS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 081341.Argued February 24, 2010Decided May 24, 2010 Respondent Marcus was convicted of engaging in forced labor and sex trafficking between January 1999 and October 2001. On appeal, he pointed out for the first time that the federal statutes he violated did not become law until October 2000. Thus, he claimed, the indictment and evidence permitted at trial allowed a jury to convict him exclusively on the basis of preenactment conduct in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. He conceded that he had not raised this objection in the District Court, but argued that because the constitutional error was plain, his conviction must be set aside. The Second Circuit agreed and vacated the conviction. In doing so, the court held that, even in the case of a co...
Carr Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
Carr v. United States - 08-1301 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CARR V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CARR v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 081301.Argued February 24, 2010Decided June 1, 2010 Enacted in 2006, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) makes it a federal crime for, inter alia, any person (1) who is required to register under [SORNA], and (2) who travels in interstate or foreign commerce, to (3) knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration, 18 U. S. C. 2250(a). Before SORNAs enactment, petitioner Carr, a registered sex offender in Alabama, relocated to Indiana without complying with the latter States registration requirements. Carr was indicted under 2250 post-SORNA. The Federal District Court denied Carrs motion to dismiss, which asserted that the 2250 prosecution would violate the Constitutions Ex Post Facto Clause because he had traveled to India...
Jefferson Vs. Upton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
Jefferson v. Upton - 09-8852 (2010) Jefferson v. Upton - 09-8852 (2010) PER CURIAM JEFFERSON V. UPTON 560 U. S. ____ (2010) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LAWRENCE JOSEPH JEFFERSON v. STEPHENUPTON, WARDEN on petition for writ of certiorari to the united statescourt of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 098852.Decided May 24, 2010 Per Curiam. Petitioner Lawrence Jefferson, who has been sentenced to death, claimed in both state and federal courts that his lawyers were constitutionally inadequate because they failed to investigate a traumatic head injury that he suffered as a child. The state court rejected that claim after making a finding that the attorneys were advised by an expert that such investigation was unnecessary. Under the governing federal statute, that factual finding is presumed correct unless any one of eight exceptions applies. See 28 U. S. C. 2254(d)(1)(8) (1994 ed.). But the Court of Appeals considered only one of those exceptions (specifically ...
Lewis Vs. Chicago
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
Lewis v. Chicago - 08-974 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 LEWIS V. CHICAGO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LEWIS et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 08974.Argued February 22, 2010Decided May 24, 2010 In 1995, respondent the City of Chicago gave a written examination to applicants seeking firefighter positions. In January 1996, the City announced it would draw candidates randomly from a list of applicants who scored at least 89 out of 100 points on the examination, whom it designated as well qualified. It informed those who scored below 65 that they had failed and would not be considered further. It informed applicants who scored between 65 and 88, whom it designated as qualified, that it was unlikely they would be called for further processing but that the City would keep them on the eligibility list for as long as that list was used. That May, the City selected its first class of applicants ...
American Needle, Inc. Vs. National Football League
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League - 08-661 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. V. NATIONALFOOTBALL LEAGUE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. v . NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 08661.Argued January 13, 2010Decided May 24, 2010 Respondent National Football League (NFL) is an unincorporated association of 32 separately owned professional football teams, also respondents here. The teams, each of which owns its own name, colors, logo, trademarks, and related intellectual property, formed respondent National Football League Properties (NFLP) to develop, license, and market that property. At first, NFLP granted nonexclusive licenses to petitioner and other vendors to manufacture and sell team-labeled apparel. In December 2000, however, the teams authorized NFLP to grant exclusive licenses. NFLP granted an exclusive license to respondent Reebok Int...
Hardt Vs. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-24-2010
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. - 09-448 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 HARDT V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HARDT v . RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 09448.Argued April 26, 2010Decided May 24, 2010 After medical problems forced petitioner Hardt to stop working, she filed for long-term disability benefits under her employers long-term disability plan. Upon exhausting her administrative remedies, Hardt sued respondent Reliance, her employers disability insurance carrier, alleging that it had violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by wrongfully denying her benefits claim. The District Court denied Reliance summary judgment, finding that because the carrier had acted on incomplete medical information, the benefits denial was not based on substantial evidence. Though also denying Hardt summary judgment, the court state...
Wood Vs. Allen
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-2010
Wood v. Allen - 08-9156 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 WOOD V. ALLEN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WOOD v . ALLEN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMADEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 089156.Argued November 4, 2009Decided January 20, 2010 Under 28 U. S. C. 2254(d)(2), a federal court may grant a state prisoner habeas relief if his claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court and resulted in a decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. Under 2254(e)(1), a determination of a factual issue made by a State court [is] presumed to be correct, and the petitioner has the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence. Petitioner Wood was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in Alabama state court. Two of his court-appointed attorneys, Dozier and Ralph, had signific...
Sullivan Vs. Florida
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-2010
Sullivan v. Florida - 08-7621 (2010) Sullivan v. Florida - 08-7621 (2010) 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 560 U. S. ____ (2010) 560 U. S. ____ (2010) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 08-7621 JOE HARRIS SULLIVAN, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA on writ of certiorari to the district court of appealof florida, first district [May 17, 2010] Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. It is so ordered. ...
Graham Vs. Florida
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-2010
Graham v. Florida - 08-7412 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GRAHAM v . FLORIDA certiorari to the district court of appeal offlorida, 1st district No. 087412.Argued November 9, 2009Decided May 17, 2010 Petitioner Graham was 16 when he committed armed burglary and another crime. Under a plea agreement, the Florida trial court sentenced Graham to probation and withheld adjudication of guilt. Subsequently, the trial court found that Graham had violated the terms of his probation by committing additional crimes. The trial court adjudicated Graham guilty of the earlier charges, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to life in prison for the burglary. Because Florida has abolished its parole system, the life sentence left Graham no possibility of release except executive clemency. He challenged his sentence under the Eighth Amendments Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, but the State First District Court of Appeal affirm...
United States Vs. Comstock
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-17-2010
United States v. Comstock - 08-1224 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . COMSTOCK et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit No. 081224.Argued January 12, 2010Decided May 17, 2010 Federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released. 18 U. S. C. 4248. The Government instituted civil-commitment proceedings under 4248 against respondents, each of whom moved to dismiss on the ground, inter alia, that, in enacting the statute, Congress exceeded its powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 18. Agreeing, the District Court granted dismissal, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed on the legislative-power ground. Held: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress authority sufficient to enact 4248. Taken together, five cons...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »