|
|
| |
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!
|
| |
Federal Courts -
U. S. Supreme Court - May 24 - May 29, 2001
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., No. 99-1848,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: Petitioners alleged that the statutory requirement, that residents of residential board and care homes be capable of moving themselves from situations involving imminent danger, violated the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988,, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,After the requirement was statutorily eliminated by respondents' legislature, petitioners sought an award of attorney fees as the prevailing party under the statutes. The United States Supreme Court held that, even though petitioners obtained the relief they sought, statutory attorney fees were precluded since petitioners could not be deemed the prevailing party. Although petitioners' lawsuit brought about the desired voluntary change by respondents, there was no alteration in the legal relationship of the parties and no judgment in favor of petitioners was entered.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
New Hampshire v. Maine, No. 130, Orig.,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court held judicial estoppel barred New Hampshire from asserting, contrary to its prior position, that the inland river boundary ran along the Maine shore. It was clearly inconsistent with its interpretation of the words "Middle of the River" during the 1970's litigation. In the 1977 consent decree, New Hampshire agreed that "Middle of the River" meant middle of the main navigable channel. The states had represented that the proposed judgment was in each state's best interest and the court had accepted the proposed boundary. The court's acceptance of the consent decree was a judicial function. The consent decree reasonably invested imprecise terms with definitions that give effect to the 1740 decree. Pleadings in the prior case showed New Hampshire had done a searching historical inquiry and understood the importance of the boundary. The new position was advanced not to enforce its own laws within its borders, but to adjust the border itself. Given Maine's countervailing interest in the location of the boundary, there was no broad interest of public policy giving New Hampshire the prerogative to construe "Middle of the River" differently than it did 25 years ago.
|
|
| |
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, No. 00-24,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, May 29, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The court found that golf courses were specifically identified as a public accommodation.. Petitioner could not discriminate against either spectators or competitors on the basis of disability. The court found that a waiver of the walking rule for respondent would not work a fundamental alteration of the game. It would not alter such an essential aspect of the game that it would be unacceptable even if it affected all competitors equally. It would not give respondent an advantage over others and fundamentally alter the character of the competition. Use of carts was not itself inconsistent with the basic character of the game. Nothing in the Rules of Golf forbid the use of carts or penalized their use. Pure chance could have a greater impact on the outcome of elite golf tournaments than fatigue from enforcement of the walking rule. Fatigue was primarily psychological, and stress and motivation were the key ingredients. The ADA's reasonable modification requirement did not carve out an exemption for elite athletics. Given its coverage of golf courses, applying the ADA to petitioner's tournaments could not be said to be unintended or unexpected.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|