|
|
| |
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 11 - January 12, 2000
|
| |
Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, Nos. 98-791 and 98-796,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 11, 2000, Decided * * Together with No. 98-796, United States v. Florida Board of Regents et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioner employees filed separate suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),, alleging that respondent state employers discriminated against petitioners on the basis of age. Federal district courts made determinations as to respondents' motions to dismiss on the basis ofimmunity. The federal appellate court consolidated the appeals from the district courts and ruled in favor of respondents. The court affirmed the judgment. The court determined that the ADEA contained a clear statement of Congress' intent to abrogate the States' immunity. However, in light of the indiscriminate scope of the ADEA's substantive requirements, and the lack of evidence of widespread and unconstitutional age discrimination by the States, the ADEA was not a valid exercise of Congress' power under. The ADEA's purported abrogation of the States' sovereign immunity was accordingly invalid.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., No. 98-822,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The Supreme Court (Court) reversed an appeals court decision that held that petitioners' citizen suit for civil penalties under Clean Water Act was moot when respondent came into compliance. The Court first addressed whether petitioners had standing to bring the action. It found respondent's discharges, and petitioners' reasonable concerns about the effects of those discharges, directly affected petitioners' recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests. The civil penalties petitioners sought carried with them a deterrent effect that made it likely the penalties would redress petitioners' injuries by abating current violations and preventing future ones. Thus, petitioners had standing. The Court then addressed whether the matter became moot when respondent came into compliance with its discharge permit. The Court held the action may have become moot only if respondent's compliance or respondent's closure of its facility made it absolutely clear that respondent's permit violations could not reasonably be expected to recur. The effect of respondent's compliance and facility closure on the prospect of future violations was a disputed factual matter. Thus, the matter was not moot.
|
|
| |
Illinois v. Wardlow, No. 98-1036,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Defendant fled upon seeing police officers patrolling an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking. Two of the officers caught up with him, and conducted a protective pat-down search for weapons. Defendant was arrested when officers discovered a .38-caliber handgun. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, but the appellate court reversed. The state supreme court agreed, concluding that sudden flight in a high crime area did not create a reasonable suspicion justifying a Terry stop. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. The Court found that nervous, evasive behavior was a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, and that headlong flight was the consummate act of evasion. The Court found that the determination of reasonable suspicion had to be based on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior, and that officers were justified in suspecting that defendant was involved in criminal activity based on his presence in an area of heavy narcotics trafficking and his unprovoked flight upon noticing the police.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback