 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 98-1811,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner driver collided with a tree and was seriously injured. Petitioners, the driver and her parents, sued respondent car manufacturer, claiming that respondent had designed its car negligently and defectively because it lacked a driver's side airbag. The district court dismissed the suit, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court granted certiorari and affirmed the dismissal. The court found that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, former, express preemption provision did not preempt the common-law "no airbag" action because the language permitted a narrow reading that excluded common-law actions. However, the court found that petitioners' suit conflicted with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208. FMVSS 208 sought a gradually developing mix of alternative passive restraint devices for safety-related reasons. The rule of state tort law for which petitioners argued would have stood as an obstacle to the accomplishment of that objective, and the statute foresaw the application of ordinary principles of preemption in cases of actual conflict. Hence, petitioners' action was pre-empted.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 99-5739,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Owner-occupied residence not used for any commercial purpose did not qualify as property used in commerce or commerce-affecting activity; thus, arson of dwelling was not subject to prosecution under federal arson statute.
|
|||||
| Ohler v. United States, No. 98-9828,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner preemptively introduced evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination, she could not have claimed on appeal that the admission of such evidence was error.
|
|||||
| United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, No. 98-1682,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Requiring cable television operators to fully scramble or limit time when sexually-oriented programming was transmitted violated First Amendment because government failed to show that it was least restrictive means.
|
|||||
| Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, No. 98-1828,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent relator, a former employee of petitioner state agency, brought a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against petitioner, alleging that petitioner submitted false claims to a government agency in connection with various federal grant programs. Petitioner moved to dismiss, arguing that petitioner was not a person subject to liability under the FCA and that the qui tam action was barred by. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and the appellate court affirmed. On writ of certiorari, the Court reversed the judgment. The Court determined that respondent relator had standing to bring suit in federal court on behalf of respondent United States under the FCA, but that the FCA did not subject petitioner to liability in the action. The term "person" in the FCA did not include states for purposes of qui tam liability.
|
|||||
| Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., No. 99-409,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor's claim was properly denied, since it was an administrative claimant of a bankruptcy estate, and could not seek payment of its claim from property encumbered by a secured creditor's lien.
|
|||||
| Raleigh v. Ill. Dep't of Revenue, No. 99-387,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 30, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a state's tax laws put the burden of proof on the taxpayer once a notice of penalty liability was issued and the Bankruptcy Code made no provision for altering it, the burden of proof on a tax claim in bankruptcy remained on the taxpayer.
|
|||||
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. |
