 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cal. Dental Ass'n v. Ftc, No. 97-1625,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent agency had jurisdiction under the FTC Act over petitioner association because it provided substantial benefit to its members, but because disputed anticompetitive efforts were not obvious, more than a rule-of-reason analysis was required.
|
|||||
| City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, No. 97-1235,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit under, a jury verdict for respondent developer alleging unlawful deprivation of property was upheld, because the reasonableness of petitioner city's rejection of a development plan was primarily a factual issue to be resolved by the jury. Respondent made repeated attempts to obtain petitioner's approval of site plans for beachfront property but was unable to obtain approval. Respondent brought suit under, alleging that it had been denied all economically viable use of the property without compensation and that the decision to reject the development proposal did not substantially advance a legitimate public purpose. The jury found for respondent, and the appellate court affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the question of whether deprivation of use of property advanced legitimate public interests was an issue involving factual considerations normally resolved by juries. Becausedid not in itself confer a right to jury trial, the court applied aanalysis. A lawsuit underwas a tort action to which the right of jury trial applied.
|
|||||
| Cleveland v. Policy Mgmt. Sys. Corp., No. 97-1008,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Plaintiff could bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),, despite having received Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (SSDI), where inconsistent statements were sufficiently explained. Plaintiff suffered a stroke and received SSDI benefits upon her sworn statement that she was unable to work. She also brought an ADA action alleging that defendant employer failed to make reasonable accommodations to allow her to continue working. Defendant moved for summary judgment based upon plaintiff's statement that she was unable to work. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded because receipt of SSDI benefits did not automatically bar a plaintiff from maintaining an ADA action. Improvement in a plaintiff's condition might allow her to return to work with reasonable accommodation. Where plaintiff offered sufficient explanation of the inconsistency in her statements, summary judgment for defendant was inappropriate.
|
|||||
| Cross v. Pelican Bay State Prison, Nos. 98-8486 and 98-8487,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because petitioner prison inmate had repeatedly abused court's certiorari process, the court denied petitioner's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and entered an order barring prospective filings by petitioner in noncriminal cases.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., No. 97-843,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner brought suit against respondent school district, alleging that her fifth-grade daughter was the victim of sexual harassment by another student in her class. Petitioner claimed monetary and injunctive relief under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court, which held that "student-on-student," or peer, harassment provided no grounds for a private cause of action under Title IX. The Court held that a private damages action could lie against a recipient of Title IX funding in cases of peer harassment, but only where the recipient acted with deliberate indifference to known acts of harassment in its programs or activities. Moreover, the Court concluded that such an action would lie only for harassment that was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively barred the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit. On the complaint, the Court could not say beyond doubt that petitioner could prove no set of facts in support of her claim. Therefore, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
|
|||||
| Hanlon v. Berger, No. 97-1927,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Agents of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service were entitled to the defense of qualified immunity, in an action filed by property owners alleging that a search of their property while accompanied by the media violated the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Layne, No. 98-83,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 24, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When respondent law enforcement officials entered petitioners' home to execute an arrest warrant for petitioners' son, they invited media representatives to accompany them. Respondents entered the home and restrained petitioner husband, but they did not find the fugitive son. The media took photographs, but did not publish them. Petitioners sued respondents in their personal capacities for money damages, contending respondents' action involving the media violated theirrights. Petitioners sued federal officials under Bivens, and state officials under. The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which held that respondents were entitled to qualified immunity. Although the court held that such a "media ride" violated, it found that the state of the law was not clearly established at the time the search took place. It was not obvious from the general principles ofthat respondents' conduct violated the Constitution, and there were no judicial opinions holding the practice unlawful. Therefore, it was not unreasonable that respondents believed their actions were lawful.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. United States, No. 97-8629,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 1, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juror unanimity as to each specific violation of the federal drug laws was required for conviction under the continuing criminal enterprise statute because each violation was an element of the offense of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise.
|
|||||
| Amoco Prod. Co. v. S. Ute Indian Tribe, No. 98-830,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 7, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Congress' interpretation of coal almost a century ago was a solid rock substance and did not encompass coalbed methane gas; thus, the gas was not reserved to the United States under a land patent.
|
|||||
| O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, No. 97-2048,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 7, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A petition for discretionary review in the state supreme court was required for exhaustion of state remedies, and procedural default occurred where a federal habeas petitioner failed to present his claims to the state supreme court.
|
|||||
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. |
