 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bridgers v. Tex., No. 00-8942,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari was denied for other reasons despite the fact that police detectives' warnings failed to include an essential Miranda advising of the right to a lawyer's presence during interrogation.
|
|||||
| Cooper Indus. v. Leatherman Tool Group, No. 99-2035,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The court found that the Due Process Clause imposed substantive limits on the states' discretion to impose criminal penalties and punitive damages. That clause made's prohibition against excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments applicable to the states. The Due Process Clause of its own force also prohibited states from imposing "grossly excessive" punishments on tortfeasors. The court found that factual findings made by the district courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry had to be accepted unless clearly erroneous. But, the court held that the question of whether a fine was constitutionally excessive called for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and de novo review of that question was appropriate. The court concluded that it seemed likely that a thorough, independent review of the district court's rejection of petitioner's due process objections to the punitive damages award might well have led the Court of Appeals to reach a different result. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded the judgment.
|
|||||
| Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, No. 00-1210,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where arbitrator denied baseball player's claim, federal appellate court erred in reversing the district court's denial of the player's motion to vacate the arbitration award and in directing the arbitrator to enter judgment in favor of player.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Tennessee, No. 99-6218,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Retroactive application of judicial abolition of archaic common law rule, which precluded murder conviction where victim did not die within year and a day of stabbing, was not unexpected under prior law and thus did not violate due process.
|
|||||
| United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., No. 00-151,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 14, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though permitted by state law, medical necessity was not a defense to federal prohibition of marijuana use since controlled substances statute unambiguously classified marijuana as having no medical benefits warranting exception.
|
|||||
| Bartnicki v. Vopper, Nos. 99-1687 and 99-1728,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 21, 2001, * Decided * Together with No. 99-1728, United States v. Vopper, aka Williams, et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioners alleged that an unknown person intercepted petitioners' telephone conversation regarding a matter of public concern and that respondent media representatives published the contents of the conversation knowing that the recording had been obtained illegally, in violation of federal and state wiretapping statutes. In petitioners' suit against respondents for damages, the appellate court determined that the statutes were invalid. On writ of certiorari, the court affirmed the judgment, determining that the application of the statutes under the circumstances violated the. Petitioners and the Government identified two interests served by the federal and state statutes, the interest in removing an incentive for parties to intercept private conversations and the interest in minimizing the harm to persons whose conversations have been illegally intercepted. However, the court determined that the interests could not justify the statutes' restrictions on speech.
|
|||||
| The Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int'l Holdings, Inc., No. 00-347,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An oral agreement to give an option to buy stock while secretly intending never to honor that option was found to be a violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934's prohibition of deceptive devices.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hatter, No. 99-1978,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 21, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Compensation Clause did not forbid Congress from enacting a law imposing a nondiscriminatory tax upon federal judges; however the discriminatory application of taxes upon federal judges was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Smith v. Luebbers, 00-10165 (00A1029),
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 22, 2001, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
