|
|
| |
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 - April 5 - May 3, 1999
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, No. 97-1909,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 5, 1999, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Appellee corporation filed a complaint in state court seeking damages for an alleged breach of contract and fraud by appellant corporation. Appellee did not serve appellant at that time, but three days later faxed a courtesy copy of the file-stamped complaint to one of appellant's vice presidents. The parties then engaged in settlement discussions. About two weeks later, appellee officially served appellant under local law by certified mail. Thirty days after service but 44 days after receiving the faxed copy of the complaint, appellant removed the case under, to federal district court. Appellee moved to remand the case to the state court on the ground that appellant filed the removal notice 14 days too late. The district court denied the motion on the ground that the 30 day removal period did not commence until appellant was officially served. On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, instructing the district court to remand the action to state court. Appellant sought further review. The Court reversed and remanded because appellant's time to remove was triggered by formal service, not just by receipt of the complaint.
|
|
| |
Wyo. v. Houghton, No. 98-184,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 5, 1999, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: A car in which appellee individual was riding was stopped by a police officer employed by appellant state. The officer noticed a syringe in the driver's shirt pocket. The driver admitted the syringe was used to take drugs. The officer then began a search of the passenger compartment of the car for contraband. He found a purse, which appellee claimed was hers. Inside, the officer found two containers; both contained illegal methamphetamine. Subsequently, appellant charged appellee with felony possession of methamphetamine. The trial court denied appellee's motion to suppress all evidence obtained from the purse as the fruit of a violation ofand. The trial court held that the officer had probable cause to search the car for contraband and any containers therein that could hold contraband. A jury convicted appellee as charged. Appellee sought review, and the state supreme court reversed. Appellant sought further review. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officer was entitled to inspect appellee's belongings found in the car that were capable of concealing the object of the search because he had probable cause to search the car.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback