Us Supreme Court Court May 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.
Fox Vs. Vice
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-31-2011
Fox v. Vice SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 FOX V. VICE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOX v . VICE, as executrix of the ESTATE OF VICE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 10114.Argued March 22, 2011Decided June 6, 2011 Claiming that he was subjected to dirty tricks during his successful campaign to become the police chief of Vinton, La., petitioner Fox filed a state-court suit against Vice, the incumbent chief, and the town (Vice, for short). Foxs suit asserted both state-law claims, including defamation, and federal civil rights claims under 42 U. S. C. 1983, including interference with Foxs right to seek public office. Vice removed the case to federal court based on the 1983 claims. After discovery, he sought summary judgment on the federal claims, which Fox conceded were not valid. The District Court accordingly dismissed them with prejudice and remanded the remaining claims to state court, noting that Vices attorneys work ...
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. Vs. Roche Molecular ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-31-2011
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY v . ROCHE MOLECULARSYSTEMS, INC., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 091159.Argued February 28, 2011Decided June 6, 2011 In 1985, a small California research company called Cetus began to develop methods for quantifying blood-borne levels of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS. A Nobel Prize winning technique developed at Cetus known as PCR was an integral part of these efforts. In 1988, Cetus began to collaborate with scientists at Stanford Universitys Department of Infectious Diseases to test the efficacy of new AIDS drugs. Dr. Holodniy joined Stanford as a research fellow in the department around that tim...
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. Vs. Halliburton Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-26-2011
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. V. HALLIBURTON CO. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., fka ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE SUPPORTING FUND, INC. v .HALLIBURTON CO. et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 091403.Argued April 25, 2011Decided June 6, 2011 Petitioner Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (EPJ Fund), is the lead plaintiff in a putative securities fraud class action filed against Halliburton Co. and one of its executives (collectively Halliburton). EPJ Fund alleges that Halliburton made various misrepresentations designed to inflate the companys stock price, in violation of 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b5. EPJ Fund also contends that Halliburton later made a number of corrective disclosures that caused the stock price to drop and, consequently, investors to lose money. EPJ Fund sought ...
Ashcroft Vs. Al-kidd
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-26-2011
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ASHCROFT v . al-KIDD certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 1098.Argued March 2, 2011Decided May 31, 2011 Respondent al-Kidd alleges that, after the September 11th terrorist attacks, then-Attorney General Ashcroft authorized federal officials to detain terrorism suspects using the federal material-witness statute, 18 U. S. C. 3144. He claims that this pretextual detention policy led to his material-witness arrest as he was boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia. To secure the warrant, federal officials had told a Magistrate Judge that information crucial to Sami Omar al-Hussayens prosecution would be lost if al-Kidd boarded his flight. Prosecutors never called al-Kidd as a witness, and (as he alleges) never meant to do so. Al-Kidd filed suit pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 , challenging the constituti...
United States Vs. Tinklenberg
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2011
United States v. Tinklenberg SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v . TINKLENBERG certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 091498.Argued February 22, 2011Decided May 26, 2011 The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 (Act) provides, inter alia, that in any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial shall commence within seventy days after the arraignment, 18 U. S. C. 3161(c)(1), but lists a number of exclusions from the 70-day period, including delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion, 3161(h)(1)(D). Respondent Tinklenbergs trial on federal drug and gun charges began 287 days after his arraignment. The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the trial violated the Acts 70-day requirement, finding that 218 of th...
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America Vs. Whiting
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-23-2011
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America, et al. v. Whiting SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al. v . WHITING et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 09115.Argued December 8, 2010Decided May 26, 2011 The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it unlawful for a person or other entity to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien. 8 U. S. C. 1324a(a)(1)(A). Employers that violate that prohibition may be subjected to federal civil and criminal sanctions. IRCA also restricts the ability of States to combat employment of unauthorized workers; the Act expressly preempts any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, o...
Camreta Vs. Greene
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-16-2011
Camreta v. Greene, et al.; Alford v. Greene, et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 CAMRETA V. GREENE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAMRETA v . GREENE, personally and as next friend of S. G., a minor, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 091454.Argued March 1, 2011Decided May 26, 2011* Nearly a decade ago, petitioner Camreta, a state child protective services worker, and petitioner Alford, a county deputy sheriff, interviewed then 9-year-old S. G. at her Oregon elementary school about allegations that her father had sexually abused her. They did not have a warrant or parental consent to conduct the interview. S. G. eventually stated that she had been abused. Her father stood trial for that abuse, but the jury failed to reach a verdict and the charges were later dismissed. S. G.s mother, respondent here (hereinafter S. G.), subsequently sued Camreta and Alford on S G.s behalf for damages under 42 U. S. C. 1983, alleging that the i...
Brown Vs. Plata
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-16-2011
Brown, et al. v. Plata, et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 BROWN V. PLATA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v . PLATA et al. appeal from the united states district courts for the eastern and northern districts of california No. 091233.Argued November 30, 2010Decided May 23, 2011 Californias prisons are designed to house a population just under 80,000, but at the time of the decision under review the population was almost double that. The resulting conditions are the subject of two federal class actions. In Coleman v. Brown, filed in 1990, the District Court found that prisoners with serious mental illness do not receive minimal, adequate care. A Special Master appointed to oversee remedial efforts reported 12 years later that the state of mental health care in Californias prisons was deteriorating due to increased overcrowding. In Plata v. Brown , filed in 2001, the State conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violate...
Fowler Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-16-2011
Fowler v. United States SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 FOWLER V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOWLER v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 105443.Argued March 29, 2011Decided May 26, 2011 While preparing to rob a bank, petitioner Fowler and others were discovered by a local police officer, whom Fowler killed. Fowler was convicted of violating the federal witness tampering statute, which makes it a crime to kill another person, with intent to prevent the communication by any person to a [Federal] law enforcement officer of information relating to the possible commission of a Federal offense, 18 U. S. C. 1512(a)(1)(C). Rejecting Fowlers argument that the evidence was insufficient to show that he had killed the officer intending to prevent him from communicating with a federal officer, the Eleventh Circuit held that a showing of a possible or potential communication to federal authorities was suffici...
Cigna Corp. Vs. Amara
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: May-02-2011
CIGNA Corp. v. Amara et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 CIGNA CORP. V. AMARA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CIGNA CORP. et al. v . AMARA et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 09804.Argued November 30, 2010Decided May 16, 2011 Until 1998, petitioner CIGNA Corporations pension plan provided a retiring employee with an annuity based on preretirement salary and length of service. Its new plan replaced that annuity with a cash balance based on a defined annual contribution from CIGNA, increased by compound interest. The new plan translated already-earned benefits under the old plan into an opening amount in the cash balance account. Respondents, on behalf of beneficiaries of the CIGNA Pension Plan (also a petitioner), challenged the new plans adoption, claiming, as relevant here, that CIGNAs notice of the changes was improper, particularly because the new plan in certain ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »