 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Tex. v. Cobb, No. 99-1702,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 2, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent confessed to burglary of a residence, but denied knowledge of the missing residents. After appointment of counsel for the burglary offense, respondent was subsequently advised of his rights and confessed to murdering the residents. Respondent argued that his right to assistance of counsel was violated since the permission of respondent's appointed counsel was not obtained prior to interrogation. The United States Supreme Court held that, regardless of whether the murder charge was closely related factually to the burglary offense, the right to counsel was offense specific. Since the two offenses required different elements of proof, they were separate offenses, and prosecution was not initiated on the murder offense at the time of the interrogation. Respondent thus had no right to the presence of his previously appointed counsel during the interrogation concerning the murder charge, and the confession resulting from that interrogation was admissible.
|
|||||
| Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, No. 00-152,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 17, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process was available under statutes permitting withholding of public contract amounts from subcontractor for labor violations; contractors' exclusive remedy to sue for withheld amounts was assignable, or subcontractor could sue contractors.
|
|||||
| United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co., No. 00-203,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 17, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Back wages were attributable to year of actual payment for purposes of employer taxes, rather than year wages should have been paid; treatment was consistent with longstanding regulatory interpretation and practical administration of tax laws.
|
|||||
| Easley v. Cromartie, Nos. 99-1864 and 99-1865,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 18, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On a challenge to a state legislature's redistricting of a voting district, evidence of voting registration, instead of voting behavior, was insufficient to support the district court's "race, not politics," conclusion.
|
|||||
| Shaw v. Murphy, No. 99-1613,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 18, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment upholding inmate's First Amendment claim was reversed and remanded, since inmates did not possess a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance that enhanced the protections available under the Turner test.
|
|||||
| Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, No. 00-866,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 23, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent alleged that, during a review of job applicant files, male co-workers' reactions to an applicant's sexually explicit comment constituted sexual harassment. Respondent further alleged that she suffered adverse employment actions for complaining about the alleged harassment. The United States Supreme Court first held that any punishment suffered by respondent for complaining to petitioner's officials did not constitute actionable retaliation, since the incident itself did not violate Title VII and the complaints thus did not constitute protected activity. The conduct of respondent's co-workers at most constituted an isolated incident which could not be deemed sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of respondent's employment. Further, petitioner's intention to transfer respondent, expressed shortly after the lawsuit was filed, did not establish a causal connection between the transfer and the lawsuit based on temporal proximity, since petitioner was not served with the complaint until after the statement was made.
|
|||||
| Alexander v. Sandoval, No. 99-1908,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent asserted that petitioner's policy of administering driver's license examinations only in English discriminatorily impacted non-English speakers based on national origin. Respondent further argued that such policy violated federal regulations prohibiting funding recipients from conduct that had the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination, which regulations implemented Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,The United States Supreme Court held that, even assuming that the regulations were statutorily authorized and resulted in discriminatory impact, there was no private right of action to enforce the regulations. Title VI prohibited only intentional discrimination, and the remedies available for violations of Title VI could not be extended by regulation to remedy disparate impact discrimination that did not violate the implementing statute. Further, the express language permitting the implementing regulations included no provision for implementing private enforcement rights, especially in view of the elaborate statutory remedial scheme for termination of funding for regulatory violations.
|
|||||
| Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, No. 99-1408,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 24, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent officer arrested petitioner arrestee for seatbelt violations and placed her in jail until she was released on bond. Petitioners sued respondents, alleging aviolation. Respondents were granted summary judgment. On certiorari review, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of respondents. The court determined that thedoes not limit police officers' authority to arrest without warrant for minor criminal offenses. Respondent officer had probable cause to believe that petitioner arrestee had committed a crime in his presence; therefore, respondent officer was authorized to make a custodial arrest without balancing costs and benefits or determining whether or not the arrest was in some sense necessary. The court rejected petitioners' argument that peace officers' authority to make warrantless arrests for misdemeanors was restricted at common law to instances of breach of the peace. The court also rejected petitioners' argument for a modern arrest rule.
|
|||||
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. |
