 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bd. of Regents v. Southworth, No. 98-1189,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court reversed lower court judgments invalidating the student fee program of petitioner board of regents of a public university as violative of respondent students'rights. Respondents had brought achallenge to a mandatory student activity fee imposed by petitioner and used in part by the university to support student organizations engaging in political or ideological speech. Respondents objected to the speech and expression of some of the student organizations. The court held thatpermitted a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the program was viewpoint neutral in the allocation of funding support. In general, the viewpoint neutrality requirement of the university's program was sufficient to protect the rights of the objecting students. However, the court did not sustain the student referendum mechanism of the university's program, which appeared to permit the exaction of fees in violation of the viewpoint neutrality principle. As to that aspect of the program, the court remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Bros., No. 99-150,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent clothing designer and manufacturer brought an action against petitioner retailer for trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act,, arising from petitioner's sale of "knock-offs" of respondent's dress designs. Respondent obtained a jury verdict, and the trial court denied petitioner's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed and remanded, holding that, in an action for unregistered trade dress infringement, a producer was required to prove secondary meaning in order to establish distinctiveness. The court held that the Lanham Act required a producer to show that an allegedly infringing feature was not functional, that it was likely to cause confusion with the product for which protection was sought, and that it was distinctive. The court held that a product design, like color, could not be inherently distinctive, i.e., arbitrary, fanciful, or suggestive, but that it could become distinctive if it developed a secondary meaning, which occurred when, in the minds of the public, the primary significance of the mark was to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.
|
|||||
| Fla. v. J.L., No. 98-1993,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court affirmed a judgment holding that a Terry "stop and frisk" search of respondent based only on an anonymous tip was invalid under. Respondent was searched after an anonymous caller reported to the police that a young black male standing at a particular bus stop and wearing a plaid shirt was carrying a gun. The court held that an anonymous tip that a person was carrying a gun was, without more, insufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person. The tip pointing to respondent lacked the moderate indicia of reliability necessary because the call provided no predictive information to enable the police to test the informant's knowledge or credibility. Further, the accurate description of respondent's appearance was not enough since the reasonable suspicion at issue required that the tip be reliable in its assertion of illegality, not just in its tendency to identify a determinate person. Finally, the court declined to modify the Terry standard to license a "firearm exception" since it roved too far from the court's established reliability analysis.
|
|||||
| Garner v. Jones, No. 99-137,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of a law that extended the intervals between parole considerations did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because there was no evidence that the rule would necessarily result in increased punishment for respondent.
|
|||||
| City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., No. 98-1161,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, March 29, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ordinance banning public nudity was content-neutral as City's interest in preventing harmful secondary effects of totally nude dancing was not related to suppression of exotic message conveyed; ordinance was constitutional.
|
|||||
| Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was improperly convicted of drug possession as the physical manipulation of his carry-on luggage, while his bus was routinely stopped at a permanent checkpoint, violated his reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Norfolk S. Ry. v. Shanklin, No. 99-312,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 17, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal Railroad Safety Act pre-empted widow's claim that warning devices at a railroad crossing were inadequate, since once the signs were installed using federal funds, federal standard for adequacy displaced state statutory and common law.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Taylor, No. 99-6615,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petitioner was entitled to evidentiary hearing on juror bias and prosecutorial misconduct claims since he was diligent in his efforts to develop facts supporting his claims in state proceedings.
|
|||||
| Williams v. Taylor, No. 98-8384,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 18, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner admitted to killing a person. A jury found a probability of future dangerousness and unanimously fixed petitioner's punishment at death. In petitioner's state habeas corpus proceedings alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, the state circuit court recommended a rehearing on the sentencing phase of petitioner's trial. The state supreme court did not accept that recommendation, determining that the omitted evidence would not have affected the jury's sentencing recommendation. Petitioner sought a federal writ of habeas corpus pursuant to. The Court reversed the judgment of the federal appellate court, which determined that petitioner's death sentence was not constitutionally infirm. The Court determined that petitioner's constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated and that the state supreme court's decision refusing to set aside petitioner's death sentence was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law within the meaning of.
|
|||||
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. |
