Us Supreme Court Court June 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.
Brown Vs. Entertainment Merchants Assn.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
Brown, et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 BROWN V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSN. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BROWN, GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, et al. v .ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 081448.Argued November 2, 2010Decided June 27, 2011 Respondents, representing the video-game and software industries, filed a preenforcement challenge to a California law that restricts the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Federal District Court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Held: The Act does not comport with the First Amendment. Pp. 218. (a) Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic princ...
Leal Garcia Vs. Texas
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
Leal Garcia v. Texas Dissent [ Justice Breyer ] ( ) Per Curiam ( ) Leal Garcia v. Texas - 11-5001 (2011) PER CURIAM LEAL GARCIA V. TEXAS 564 U. S. ____ (2011) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NOS. 11-5001 (11A1), 11-5002 (11A2), AND 11-5081 (11A21) HUMBERTO LEAL GARCIA, aka HUMBERTO LEAL 115001 (11A1) v. TEXAS on application for stay and on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of texas IN RE HUMBERTO LEAL GARCIA 115002 (11A2) on application for stay and on petition for writ of habeas corpus HUMBERTO LEAL GARCIA 115081 (11A21) v. RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION on application for stay and on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit [July 7, 2011] Per Curiam. Petitioner Humberto Leal Garcia (Leal) is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since before the age of two. In 1994, he kidnape...
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. Vs. Brown
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A., et al. v. Brown SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A.V. BROWN SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GOODYEAR DUNLOP TIRES OPERATIONS, S. A., et al. v . BROWN et ux., co-administrators ofthe ESTATE OF BROWN, et al. certiorari to the court of appeals of north carolina No. 1076.Argued January 11, 2011 Decided June 27, 2011 Respondents, North Carolina residents whose sons died in a bus accident outside Paris, France, filed a suit for wrongful-death damages in North Carolina state court. Alleging that the accident was caused by tire failure, they named as defendants Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation, and petitioners, three Goodyear USA subsidiaries, organized and operating, respectively, in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Petitioners tires are manufactured primarily for European and Asian markets and differ in size and construction from tires ordinarily sold in the United States. Petitioners are not regist...
J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. Vs. Nicastro
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 J. MCINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. V. NICASTRO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES J. McINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v . NICASTRO,individually and as administrator ofthe ESTATE OF NICASTRO certiorari to the supreme court of new jersey No. 091343.Argued January 11, 2011Decided June 27, 2011 Respondent Nicastro injured his hand while using a metal-shearing machine that petitioner J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. (J. McIntyre), manufactured in England, where the company is incorporated and operates. Nicastro filed this products-liability suit in a state court in New Jersey, where the accident occurred, but J. McIntyre sought to dismiss the suit for want of personal jurisdiction. Nicastros jurisdictional claim was based on three primary facts: A U. S. distributor agreed to sell J. McIntyres machines in this country; J. McIntyre officials attended trade shows in several States, albeit not in New Jersey; and no more than four J. McI...
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club Pac Vs. Bennett
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Bennett, et al; McComish, et al. v. Bennett, et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUB'S FREEDOMCLUB PAC V. BENNETT SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARIZONA FREE ENTERPRISE CLUBS FREEDOM CLUB PAC et al. v . BENNETT, SECRETARY OFSTATE OF ARIZONA, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10238.Argued March 28, 2011Decided June 27, 2011 The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act created a public financing system to fund the primary and general election campaigns of candidates for state office. Candidates who opt to participate, and who accept certain campaign restrictions and obligations, are granted an initial outlay of public funds to conduct their campaign. They are also granted additional matching funds if a privately financed candidates expenditures, combined with the expenditures of independent groups made in support of the privately financed candidate...
Stern Vs. Marshall
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
Stern v. Marshall SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 STERN V. MARSHALL SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STERN, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARSHALL v . MARSHALL, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARSHALL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 10179.Argued January 18, 2011Decided June 23, 2011 Article III, 1, of the Constitution mandates that [t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish, and provides that the judges of those constitutional courts shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour and receive for their Services[ ] a Compensation[ ] [that] shall not be diminished during their tenure. The questions presented in this case are whether a bankruptcy court judge who did not enjoy such tenure and salary protections had the authority under 28 U. S. C. 157 and Article III to enter final judgment on a counterclaim filed by Vickie L...
Bullcoming Vs. New Mexico
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
Bullcoming v. New Mexico SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BULLCOMING v . NEW MEXICO certiorari to the supreme court of new mexico No. 0910876.Argued March 2, 2011Decided June 23, 2011 The Sixth Amendments Confrontation Clause gives the accused [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. In Crawford v. Washington , 541 U. S. 36 , 59, this Court held that the Clause permits admission of [t]estimonial statements of witnesses absent from trial only where the declarant is unavailable, and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine. Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts , 557 U. S. ___, the Court declined to create a forensic evidence exception to Crawford , holding that a forensic laboratory report, created specifically to serve as evidence in a criminal proceeding, ranked as testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes. Absent stipulat...
Sorrell Vs. Ims Health Inc.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
Sorrell, et al. v. IMS Health Inc., et al. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 SORRELL V. IMS HEALTH INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v . IMS HEALTH INC. et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 10779.Argued April 26, 2011Decided June 23, 2011 Pharmaceutical manufacturers promote their drugs to doctors through a process called detailing. Pharmacies receive prescriber-identifying information when processing prescriptions and sell the information to data miners, who produce reports on prescriber behavior and lease their reports to pharmaceutical manufacturers. Detailers employed by pharmaceutical manufacturers then use the reports to refine their marketing tactics and increase sales to doctors. Vermonts Prescription Confidentiality Law provides that, absent the prescribers consent, prescriber-identifying information may not be sold by pharmacies and similar entities, disclosed by those entiti...
Freeman Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
Freeman v. United States SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FREEMAN v . UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 0910245.Argued February 23, 2011Decided June 23, 2011 In order to reduce unwarranted federal sentencing disparities, the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 authorizes the United States Sentencing Commission to create, and to retroactively amend, Sentencing Guidelines to inform judicial discretion. Title 18 U. S. C. 3582(c)(2) permits a defendant who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a Guidelines sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by retroactive amendment to move for a sentence reduction. This case concerns 3582(c)(2)s application to cases in which the defendant and the Government have entered into a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), which permits the parties to agree that a specific sentence or sentencin...
Pliva, Inc. Vs. Mensing
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-23-2011
PLIVA, Inc., et al. v. Mensing; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC v. Mensing; Actavis, Inc., v. Demahy SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 PLIVA, INC. V. MENSING SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PLIVA, INC., et al. v . MENSING certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 09993.Argued March 30, 2011Decided June 23, 2011 Five years after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved metoclopramide, a drug commonly used to treat digestive tract problems, under the brand name Reglan, generic manufacturers such as petitioners also began producing the drug. Because of accumulating evidence that long-term metoclopramide use can cause tardive dyskinesia, a severe neurological disorder, warning labels for the drug have been strengthened and clarified several times, most recently in 2009. Respondents were prescribed Reglan in 2001 and 2002, but both received the generic drug from their pharmacists. After taking the drug as prescribed for several years, bot...