Us Supreme Court Court February 2011 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.
Fcc Vs. Atandt; Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-28-2011
FCC v. AT&T; Inc. - 09-1279 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 FCC V. AT&T; INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al. v . AT&T; INC. et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit No. 091279.Argued January 19, 2011Decided March 1, 2011 The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make records and documents publicly available upon request, subject to several statutory exemptions. One of those exemptions, Exemption 7(C), covers law enforcement records the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 5 U. S. C. 552(b)(7)(C). CompTel, a trade association, submitted a FOIA request for documents AT&T; had provided to the Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau during an investigation of that company. The Bureau found that Exemption 7(C) applied to individuals identified in AT&T;s submissions but not to the company itself, ...
Walker Vs. Martin
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
Walker v. Martin - 09-996 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 WALKER V. MARTIN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WALKER, WARDEN, et al. v . MARTIN certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 09996.Argued November 29, 2010Decided February 23, 2011 While most States set determinate time limits for collateral relief applications, California courts appl[y] a general reasonableness standard to judge whether a habeas petition is timely filed, Carey v. Saffold , 536 U. S. 214 , 222. Under that standard, a [habeas] petition should be filed as promptly as the circumstances allow , In re Clark , 5 Cal. 4th 750, 765, n. 5, 855 P. 2d 729, 738, n. 5. Three decisions, Clark, In re Robbins , 18 Cal. 4th 770, 959 P. 2d 311, and In re Gallego , 18 Cal. 4th 825, 959 P. 2d 290, describe Californias timeliness requirement. A prisoner must seek habeas relief without substantial delay, e.g., Robbins , 18 Cal. 4th, at 780, 959 P. 3d, at 317, as measure...
Michigan Vs. Bryant
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-23-2011
Michigan v. Bryant - 09-150 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MICHIGAN V. BRYANT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHIGAN v . BRYANT certiorari to the supreme court of michigan No. 09150.Argued October 5, 2010Decided February 28, 2011 Michigan police dispatched to a gas station parking lot found Anthony Covington mortally wounded. Covington told them that he had been shot by respondent Bryant outside Bryants house and had then driven himself to the lot. At trial, which occurred before Crawford v. Washington , 541 U. S. 36 , and Davis v. Washington , 547 U. S. 813 , were decided, the officers testified about what Covington said. Bryant was found guilty of, inter alia, second-degree murder. Ultimately, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that the Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause, as explained in Crawford and Davis, rendered Covingtons statements inadmissible testimonial hearsay. Held: Covingtons identification and description o...
Williamson Vs. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. - 08-1314 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 WILLIAMSON V. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILLIAMSON et al. v . MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al. certiorari to the court of appeal of california, fourth appellate district, division three No. 081314.Argued November 3, 2010Decided February 23, 2011 The 1989 version of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208) requires, as relevant here, auto manufacturers to install seatbelts on the rear seats of passenger vehicles. They must install lap-and-shoulder belts on seats next to a vehicles doors or frames, but may install either those belts or simple lap belts on rear inner seats, e.g., those next to a minivans aisle. The Williamson family and Thanh Williamsons estate brought this California tort suit, claiming that Thanh died in an accident because the rear aisle seat of the Mazda minivan in which she was riding had a lap belt instead...
Csx Transportation, Inc. Vs. Alabama Dept. of Revenue
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-22-2011
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Dept. of Revenue - 09-520 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. V. ALABAMA DEPT. OFREVENUE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v . ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 09520.Argued November 10, 2010Decided February 22, 2011 Petitioner (CSX) is an interstate rail carrier that operates, and pays taxes, in Alabama. The State imposes sales and use taxes on railroads when they purchase or consume diesel fuel, but exempts their main competitorsinterstate motor and water carriers. CSX sued respondents, the Alabama Department of Revenue and its Commissioner (Alabama), claiming that this tax scheme discriminates against railroads in violation of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act or Act), which bars four forms of discriminatory taxation, 49 U. S. C. 11501(b). Three of the delineated prohibiti...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›