 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Castillo v. United States, No. 99-658,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 5, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Whether firearms used or carried in crime of violence were of specific type listed in statute as requiring greater punishment was jury question since offense involving listed weapons constituted separate offense rather than sentencing factor.
|
|||||
| Sims v. Apfel, No. 98-9537,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 5, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeal's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over issues raised by Social Security claimant was reversed, since claimant did not need to exhaust issues in her request for review by Appeals Council to preserve judicial review.
|
|||||
| Troxel v. Granville, No. 99-138,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 5, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner grandparents petitioned a Washington Superior Court for the right to visit their grandchildren. Respondent mother opposed the petition. The case ultimately reached the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the order of visitation entered by the superior court. The court granted certiorari. The court found that the visitation order was an unconstitutional infringement on respondent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her two daughters. The state superior court failed to accord the determination of respondent, a fit custodial parent, any material weight; announced a presumption in favor of grandparent visitation; and failed to accord significant weight to respondent's already having offered meaningful visitation to petitioners. The court concluded that the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution did not permit a state to infringe on the fundamental right of parents to make child rearing decisions. Accordingly, the court held that, as applied in this case, was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| United States v. Hubbell, No. 99-166,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 5, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner United States prosecuted respondent for various crimes after he produced documents in response to a court order issued pursuant to. The order directed respondent to respond to a subpoena and granted him immunity to the extent allowed by law. The lower court had remanded for a hearing to establish petitioner's knowledge of respondent's financial affairs. The appellate court concluded that respondent could not be compelled to produce the documents requested by petitioner without first receiving a grant of immunity underbecause such immunity was co-extensive with the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The constitutional privilege applied to the testimonial aspect of a response to a subpoena seeking discovery of the sources of potentially incriminating evidence and respondent's act of production had a testimonial aspect that entitled him to assert his self-incrimination privilege. Since petitioner did not show any prior knowledge of the documents respondent produced, those documents could not have provided the basis for respondent's indictment. Thus, the indictment was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Carter v. United States, No. 99-5716,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Common law distinction between larceny and robbery did not apply to statutorily defined crimes, and additional elements of lesser punished bank robbery crime precluded finding that lesser crime was lesser included offense of greater crime.
|
|||||
| Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, No. 99-579,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A private cause of action by a trustee and administrator against a nonfiduciary who participated in a prohibited transaction was allowed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
|
|||||
| Pegram v. Herdrich, No. 98-1949,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Mixed eligibility decision to delay medical treatment by sending patient to HMO owned facility, with adverse consequences, made by health maintenance organization through its physician was not fiduciary decision under ERISA.
|
|||||
| Ramdass v. Angelone, No. 99-7000,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Relief from death sentence was denied because petitioner was not entitled to instruction on parole ineligibility at sentencing because conviction had not been entered yet on earlier jury verdict making him parole ineligible.
|
|||||
| Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., No. 99-536,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The former employee brought an action against the former employer alleging that the employer violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,, in terminating his employment. The trial court submitted the case to the jury, which rendered judgment in favor of the employee. The employer appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that although a reasonable jury could have found that the employer's explanation for the employee's termination was pretextual, this showing, standing alone, was insufficient to sustain the jury's finding of liability. The employee filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The court granted certiorari and reversed, holding that the appellate court erred in reversing the trial court because the employee established a prima facie case of discrimination, introduced enough evidence for the jury to reject the employer's explanation, produced additional evidence of age-based animus, and presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the employer had intentionally discriminated against the employee based on his age.
|
|||||
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. |
