 |
|
 |
|
|
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!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Cook v. Gralike, No. 99-929,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negative labels next to state candidates for federal office who failed to comply with voter-mandated support of federal term limits was unconstitutional attempt to regulate electoral outcome, rather than permissible regulation of state election.
|
|||||
| Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, Nos. 99-603 and 99-960,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, February 28, 2001, Decided ** Together with No. 99-960, United States v. Velazquez et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Funding provision that limited arguments legal services attorneys were allowed to make on behalf of indigent welfare claimants violated First Amendment by regulating private speech and insulating federal law from legitimate judicial challenge.
|
|||||
| DOI v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, No. 99-1871,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 5, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tribe advocated its own positions in communications between tribe and agencies in water allocation proceedings, and documents did not constitute independent agency documents subject to public disclosure exemption.
|
|||||
| Ohio v. Reiner, No. 00-1028,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 19, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Witness' denial of culpability did not preclude privilege against self-incrimination, and grant of immunity was thus not error; defense that witness caused child's death created reasonable fear that answers might tend to incriminate witness.
|
|||||
| Buford v. United States, No. 99-9073,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court's finding of whether prior convictions were consolidated for career offender purposes was entitled to deference, based on familiarity with procedures and limited precedential value of de novo review of case-specific decision.
|
|||||
| Shafer v. S.C., No. 00-5250,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where only sentencing options were death or life imprisonment, failure to instruct jury that parole was unavailable for life imprisonment was denial of due process, and life imprisonment instructions were insufficient to cure jury's confusion.
|
|||||
| Traffix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, No. 99-1571,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 20, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon expiration of respondent's patents for a dual-spring mechanism to permit signs to withstand strong winds, petitioner copied the design and marketed its own sign stands. Respondent alleged that its mechanism acquired secondary meaning such that consumers associated the look of the dual-spring design with respondent, and that petitioner thus infringed respondent's trade dress. The United States Supreme Court held that any acquired secondary meaning was irrelevant, since trade dress protection was precluded by respondent's failure to sustain its burden of demonstrating that its design was not functional. Both the disclosure of the dual-spring design in the claims of the expired patents and respondent's prior patent infringement litigation indicated that the design provided a unique and useful mechanism to resist the force of the wind. Respondent's trade dress claim was thus precluded, since trade dress protection only extended to product features which were not functional.
|
|||||
| Circuit City Stores v. Adams, No. 99-1379,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court determined that the exemption provision inapplied to all contracts of employment, including petitioner's employment contract, whether or not he was engaged in transportation. Applying the maxim ejusdem generis, the Supreme Court concluded that the residual phrase "any other class of workers engaged in commerce" was to be read to give effect to the terms "seamen" and "railroad employees." Thus, the text of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),, foreclosed the construction adopted by the lower court. The better interpretation of, therefore, confined the exemption to transportation workers. The Supreme Court rejected respondent's argument that the phrase "engaged in commerce" should be interpreted broadly in light of Congress' understanding of its power when the FAA was adopted because such a variable standard ignored the reason why the phrase became a term of art in the first place. Moreover, it would have been unwieldy to deconstruct statutoryphrases depending upon the year of a particular statutory enactment.
|
|||||
| Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, No. 99-1529,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While petitioner was married to the decedent, the decedent designated petitioner as the beneficiary under a life insurance policy and a pension plan, which were provided by the decedent's employer and governed by ERISA. Two months after petitioner and the decedent divorced, the decedent died intestate. Respondents, decedent's children by a previous marriage, sued petitioner in state court to recover the life insurance and pension plan proceeds based upon a state statute providing that the designation of a spouse as the beneficiary of a nonprobate asset was revoked automatically upon divorce. The state supreme court ruled in favor of respondents. On certiorari, the Court reversed the judgment. The Court determined that ERISA expressly pre-empted the statute to the extent it applied to ERISA plans because the statute directly conflicted with ERISA's requirements that plans be administered, and benefits be paid, in accordance with plan documents. In addition, the state statute interfered with nationally uniform plan administration, one of the principal goals of ERISA.
|
|||||
| Ferguson v. City of Charleston, No. 99-936,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A state hospital implemented a policy setting forth procedures to be followed by hospital staff to identify pregnant patients suspected of drug abuse. Pursuant to the policy, hospital staff members tested pregnant patients for drug abuse and reported positive tests to the police. Petitioners, women who received obstetrical care at the hospital and who were arrested after testing positive for cocaine, sued respondents, alleging that the warrantless and allegedly nonconsensual drug tests were unconstitutional searches. The federal appellate court found the searches to be reasonable as a matter of law under the "special needs" doctrine. On certiorari, the court reversed the judgment. Given the primary purpose of the program, which was to use the threat of arrest and prosecution in order to force women into treatment, and given the extensive involvement of law enforcement officials at every stage of the policy, the case simply did not fit within the closely guarded category of "special needs." Therefore,'s general prohibition against nonconsensual, warrantless, and suspicionless searches necessarily applied to the policy.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
