|
|
| |
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases —
for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case —
for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - January 15 - June 4, 1985
|
| |
N.J. v. T. L. O., No. 83-712,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 15, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The student's purse was searched after she was suspected of having cigarettes. The principal discovered that the student had the cigarettes in her possession, and discovered evidence of marijuana and a list of alleged users from the school. The State of New Jersey brought delinquency charges against the student. The student alleged that the search of her purse violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The Court held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that a search by a school official was permissible in its scope when the measures adopted were reasonably related to the objectives of the search and were not intrusive in light of the age and the sex of the student. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the state supreme court and held that the evidence of marijuana was admissible.
|
|
| |
Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., No. 82-1913,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 19, 1985, Decided **Together with No. 82-1951, Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority et al., also on appeal from the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellee, a public mass transit authority that received substantial federal funding, brought action for declaratory judgment to determine whether it was entitled to U.S. Const. amend. X immunity from the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, 1067 (1938). The lower court held that municipal ownership and operation of the transit system was a traditional governmental function and immune from wage and overtime standards. On appeal, appellant solicitor general argued that the court erred in extending immunity to appellee. On appeal, the Court held that it was not immune from the minimum wage and overtime standards. The Court overturned the previous determination that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to enforce minimum-wage and overtime provisions of the FLSA because the provisions of FLSA did not destroy state sovereign immunity or violate any constitutional provision. The court reversed and remanded.
|
|
| |
Or. v. Elstad, No. 83-773,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 4, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant was arrested and convicted of first-degree burglary. The court of appeals reversed the conviction after suppressing defendant's confessions for lack of a valid waiver of defendant's Fifth Amendment rights. On review, the Court held that the defendant's statements, made in his own living room and in the presence of his mother before being taken to the police station, were not the subject of police coercion. The Court also held that a suspect who had once responded to unwarned yet noncoercive questioning was not thereby disabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he had been given the Miranda warnings. The Court finally held that defendant's waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights after being arrested was done voluntarily and with full understanding of his rights. The Court therefore reversed the holding of the court of appeals.
|
|
| |
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, No. 83-1362,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 19, 1985, Decided **Together with No. 83-1363, Parma Board of Education v. Donnelly et al., and No. 83-6392, Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Respondents, classified civil servants pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. ? 124.11 (1984), were dismissed from employment without hearing. Respondents claimed that ? 124.34 was unconstitutional on its face because it did not provide an employee an opportunity to respond to the charges against him prior to removal, and, as a result discharged employees were deprived of liberty and property without due process. On certiorari, the Court stated that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution provided that certain substantive rights, such as life, liberty, and property, could not be deprived except pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. The Court held that all the process that was due was provided by a pretermination opportunity to respond, coupled with post-termination administrative proceedings as provided by Ohio statute. As respondents alleged that they had no chance to respond, the district court erred in dismissing for failure to state a claim.
|
|
| |
United States v. Sharpe, No. 83-529,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 20, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The lower court reversed defendants' convictions for drug trafficking, concluding that although a police officer had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that defendants were engaged in illegal drug trafficking, the investigative stop of defendants was unlawful because the length of the stop turned it into a de facto arrest not supported by probable cause. On certiorari, the Court stated that in assessing whether a police detention was too long in duration to be justified as an investigative stop, it was appropriate to examine whether the officer diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel his suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain defendants. The Court held that because the officer pursued his investigation of defendants in a diligent and reasonable manner, and the delay was attributable almost entirely to the evasive actions of one defendant, the 20-minute stop was not violative of the Fourth Amendment.
|
|
| |
Tenn. v. Garner, No. 83-1035,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 27, 1985, Decided **Together with No. 83-1070, Memphis Police Department et al. v. Garner et al., on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellee brought suit for violations of his son's constitutional rights against appellant city and appellant police department, and appellant state intervened after the court of appeals reversed the decision made by the district court on remand, finding the use of deadly force was unwarranted. Affirming the judgment, the Court found that the apprehension of a suspect is a seizure for the purposes of the Constitution and the use of deadly force to achieve a seizure was only permitted under certain circumstances. The Court held that deadly force was only allowed to apprehend felons who the police had probable cause to believe were dangerous to them or to the public. The Court further found that the shooting of appellee's son, who was a suspect in a burglary, was not an acceptable use of deadly force.
|
|
| |
Commodity Futures Trading Com v. Weintraub, No. 84-261,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 29, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Respondent commodity broker filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation on the same day petitioner Commodity Exchange Commission filed a complaint against respondent for violating the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C.S. ? 1. After the bankruptcy trustee was appointed, petitioner sought testimony from the former counsel for respondent regarding respondent's fraudulent activities. The counsel asserted the attorney-client privilege, and the trustee waived the privilege. A magistrate ordered the testimony, and respondent sought review. The trial court upheld the magistrate's order, and respondent appealed. The appellate court reversed and found that the trustee lacked the authority to waive the privilege. Petitioner sought review. The Court reversed the appellate court decision. The Court found that the power to exercise the attorney-client privilege in bankruptcy proceedings passed to the bankruptcy trustee and that the trustee had the power to waive the debtor corporation's privilege with respect to communications that took place prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
|
|
| |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, No. 83-2097,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 20, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellant brought suit against appellee for breach of contract in the Florida courts. The court of appeals reversed the holding of the lower court that Fla. Stat. ch. 48.193(1)(g) (Supp. 1984) granted the Florida courts personal jurisdiction over the appellee. On review, the Supreme Court determined that a party that avails themselves of the protections and benefits of the law of a forum state is subject to personal jurisdiction of that state. The court found that the appellees had entered into a contract and established a substantial and continuing relationship with the appellant, a Florida resident. The court further found that the appellee had fair notice that he might be subject to suit in Florida. The court further found that the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend due process and reversed the holding of the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|
| |
Harper & Row, Publrs. v. Nation Enters., No. 83-1632,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 20, 1985, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioners alleged that the lower court erred in ruling in favor of respondents and holding that respondents did not infringe upon petitioners' copyright because use of the material was excused by the public's interest in the subject matter and by a finding that the fair use defense was established. Reversing the judgment, the court held that respondents failed to establish that their unauthorized use of quotations from a public figure's unpublished manuscript was sanctioned by the fair use doctrine. Respondents admitted to lifting verbatim quotes. The unpublished nature of book was a key factor that negated the defense of fair use. The court found that four statutory factors relevant to determining whether the use was fair were not satisfied. Respondents use had the intended purpose of supplanting copyright holder's commercially valuable right of first publication. The use infringed upon the copyright holder's interest in confidentiality and creative control. Respondents took what was essentially the heart of the book and copied much of it verbatim. Finally, the use of copyrighted material had an actual effect on the market for first rights to publish excerpts from the book.
|
|
| |
Wallace v. Jaffree, No. 83-812,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 4, 1985, Decided **Together with No. 83-929, Smith et al. v. Jaffree et al., also on appeal from the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellee, a resident of Mobile County, Alabama, filed suit against the appellant governor, school board and other public officials, seeking an injunction restraining appellants from maintaining or allowing regular prayer services in the public schools. Appellee alleged that his two children were subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination during the school year and appellants refused to stop the services. The action was later certified as a class action. At trial, appellants relied on three statutes enacted to allow voluntary prayer in the schools. The district court dismissed appellees' claim, concluding that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Const. amend. I did not bar the states from establishing a religion. The appeals court reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling because the statute intended to convey a message of state approval of prayer in the public schools, and was clearly violative of the U.S. Const. amend. I.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback