 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| City of Chi. v. Morales, No. 97-1121,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner city enacted a Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering in any public place. The Supreme Court of Illinois struck down the ordinance on the basis that it violated the,. Upon review, the court agreed with the Illinois Supreme Court and held that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague. The ordinance did not meet the fair notice requirement because it did not provide adequate notice of what constituted prohibited conduct. Because no standard of conduct was specified, at all, by the ordinance, the entire ordinance failed to give the ordinary citizen adequate notice of what was forbidden and what was permitted. The ordinance also violated the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement. Because the ordinance provided absolute discretion to police officers to determine what activities constituted loitering, the ordinance failed to meet constitutional standards for definitiveness and clarity. Thus, the ordinance was unconstitutional for vagueness.
|
|||||
| Dickinson v. Zurko, No. 98-377,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Federal Circuit should review factual findings made by Patent and Trademark Office under the "arbitrary, capricious, abuse of discretion, or unsupported by substantial evidence" standard of the Administrative Procedure Act.
|
|||||
| Lilly v. Va., No. 98-5881,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of an accomplice confession that implicated a criminal defendant was not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule and violated the defendant's right to confront witnesses against him.
|
|||||
| Neder v. United States, No. 97-1985,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 10, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner's convictions under various federal statutes prohibiting fraud, including mail fraud,, wire fraud,, and bank fraud,statutes, were affirmed, and petitioner's application for writ of certiorari was granted. The court held the failure to instruct the jury as to materiality, an element of tax fraud under, was subject to harmless-error analysis because the error did not render the trial fundamentally unfair. The court found the error was harmless because the error did not, beyond a reasonable doubt, contribute to the verdict, petitioner did not contest materiality, which was supported by overwhelming evidence, and the jury verdict would have been the same even if instruction was proper. Materiality was an element of mail, wire, and bank fraud because the terms in the statute were given their established common law meaning, which included materiality. The judgment was reversed and remanded only for consideration of whether the failure to instruct the jury on materiality with respect to mail, wire, and bank fraud was harmless error. The judgment affirming the tax fraud conviction was affirmed.
|
|||||
| Cunningham v. Hamilton County, No. 98-727,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 14, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order imposing sanctions on petitioner attorney for failing to heed a discovery order was not a final decision and, thus, not immediately appealable.
|
|||||
| Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass'n v. United States, No. 98-387,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 14, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restrictions on advertisements of private casino gambling that were broadcast by radio or television stations located in Louisiana where such gambling was legal violated the First Amendment.
|
|||||
| W. v. Gibson, No. 98-238,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 14, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In respondent's action for gender based employment discrimination, the EEOC had the authority to require federal agencies to pay compensatory damages when such agencies discriminated against employees.
|
|||||
| Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund, No. 98-231,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 17, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner holding company was the debtor of notes purchased by respondent. As part of their breach of contract suit against petitioner holding company, respondents obtained a preliminary injunction requiring petitioners to post a monetary bond. Subsequent to a final judgment in favor of respondents, petitioners argued that the preliminary injunction had been wrongfully granted. The Court first held that the issue of the injunction was not moot, despite final judgment on the merits in respondents' favor, as the final judgment involved a separate issue from the grant of the injunction. The Court then held that the scope of federal equity jurisdiction extended only as far as traditional English courts of equity. As traditional English chancery courts did not have jurisdiction to restrain a party's assets in the absence of an established judgment, the Court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the preliminary injunction.
|
|||||
| Nasa v. Fed. Labor Rels. Auth., No. 98-369,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 17, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner office of inspector general committed an unfair labor practice when its investigator interviewed employee of petitioner federal agency without active participation of union representative because investigator was an agency representative.
|
|||||
| Strickler v. Greene, No. 98-5864,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 17, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Petitioner's habeas corpus application was granted by the federal trial court based on a finding that exculpatory evidence was not disclosed. The appellate court reversed, holding petitioner's Brady claim was procedurally defaulted. The court granted certiorari. After reviewing the record, the court found the evidence at issue was exculpatory and not disclosed. Although petitioner's Brady claim was procedurally defaulted, petitioner demonstrated cause for failing to timely raise his claim because respondent withheld exculpatory evidence, petitioner reasonably relied on respondent's open file policy, and respondent confirmed petitioner's reliance on the open file policy was reasonable during state habeas proceedings. Regardless, the court concluded petitioner did not show a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. Petitioner therefore could show materiality under Brady or prejudice from his failure to timely raise the claim. The appellate court's judgment denying petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus was thus affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
