 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Edwards v. Carpenter, No. 98-2060,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As prisoner's ineffective-assistance claim was not presented to the state court in the way that was required, the claim was procedurally defaulted and it could not have served as cause to excuse the procedural default of another habeas claim.
|
|||||
| Nelson v. Adams United States, No. 99-502,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 25, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court's simultaneous decision making petitioner a party to an action and subjecting him to judgment was reversed because petitioner was not afforded due process as reflected in rule 15; petitioner was not given the chance to contest his liability.
|
|||||
| Beck v. Prupis, No. 98-1480,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's civil RICO action properly dismissed because petitioner could not bring suit under RICO predicated on a section 1962(d) violation for injuries caused by his employment termination because the termination was not an act of racketeering.
|
|||||
| Slack v. McDaniel, No. 98-6322,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, April 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habeas petition that was filed after an initial petition was dismissed without adjudication for failure to exhaust state remedies was not a successive petition; case remanded to determine if petitioner entitled to a certificate of appealability.
|
|||||
| Carmell v. Tex., No. 98-7540,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's conviction under a new statute was reversed because the statute constituted an ex post facto law in that it altered the rules of evidence and required less or different testimony than was required at the time the offense was committed.
|
|||||
| Christensen v. Harris County, No. 98-1167,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 1, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Court affirmed a judgment that held that under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),, states and their political subdivisions may require employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. Under the FLSA, employers were required to compensate their employees for overtime by granting them compensatory time. Once employees accrued a certain amount of compensatory time, employers were required to pay cash compensation for the accrued time. Respondent implemented policy requiring employees to schedule time off in order to reduce the amount of accrued compensatory time. The Court held that there was nothing in the statute that prohibited this policy. The Court rejected petitioners' argument that a provision in the statute that granted control to employees to use compensatory time implied that all other methods of spending compensatory time were precluded. The Court found that provision, viewed in the context of the overall statutory scheme, was better read as setting up a safeguard to ensure that an employee will receive timely compensation for working overtime.
|
|||||
| Fischer v. United States, No. 99-116,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 15, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal bribery statute prohibiting persons from defrauding organizations which receive, in any one year, benefits in excess of $ 10,000 under a federal program was found to apply to person who defrauded a hospital receiving Medicare payments.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. United States, No. 99-5153,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 15, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal sentencing statute was found to permit the imposition of supervised release following a recommitment of a federal felon who had violated the terms of his initial supervised release.
|
|||||
| Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, No. 98-1991,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 15, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Changes in regulations governing grazing preferences, permit issuance, and ownership of range improvements held not to have exceeded the statutory authority of the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Taylor Grazing Act.
|
|||||
| United States v. Morrison, Nos. 99-5 and 99-29,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 15, 2000, * Decided* Together with No. 99-29, Brzonkala v. Morrison et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner victim brought an action against respondent offender under, which provided a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. The lower court struck downand concluded that Congress lacked constitutional authority to enact the statute under either theor. The court rejected petitioners' argument thatwas a regulation of activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. The court affirmed the decision of the lower court and held that gender-motivated crimes of violence were not considered economic activity, and therefore, thedid not vest Congress with the authority to enact a statute regulating such. Moreover, the court affirmed that the civil remedy contained inshould be struck down as it was outside Congress's remedial power under. The civil remedy was not found to be corrective in its character nor adapted to counteract and redress the operation of such prohibited state laws or proceedings of state officers. Instead, the subject statute redressed private discrimination and was outside Congress' power to enact.
|
|||||
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. |
