 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee County Mental Health Ctr., No. 98-8952.,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 21, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where petitioner abused the writ of certiorari in noncriminal cases, the court limited its sanction accordingly and barred further such filings from petitioner in noncriminal cases.
|
|||||
| Jefferson County v. Acker, No. 98-10,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 21, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: County license tax on federal judges fell within permissible allowances under the Public Salary Tax Act where it did not make demands directly on the federal government.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 97-9361,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 21, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, facing possible death sentence, was not entitled to instruction as to effect of jury deadlock under Eighth Amendment; submission of two allegedly duplicative, vague, and overbroad non-statutory aggravating factors was harmless error.
|
|||||
| Martin v. Hadix, No. 98-262,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 21, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposing the PLRA's attorney fee provisions on work performed before the PLRA's effective date had an impermissible effect because there was no intent for retroactive application and it interfered with the parties' reasonable expectations.
|
|||||
| Md. v. Dyson, No. 98-1062,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 21, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because respondent's car was readily mobile and probable cause existed to believe it contained contraband, U.S. Const. amend. IV permitted a warrantless search of the car even though there were no exigent circumstances.
|
|||||
| Albertson'S, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, No. 98-591,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A waiver to a federal visual acuity requirement was an experiment and not founded on public safety; therefore, petitioner was not required to accept the waiver or to justify insistence on following the requirement.
|
|||||
| Kolstad v. ADA, No. 98-208,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner employee was denied a promotion by respondent employer and filed a discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,Petitioner sought punitive damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act),. The trial court refused to give a punitive damages instruction, and petitioner was awarded compensatory damages. The denial of the punitive damages instruction was affirmed because respondent did not commit egregious misconduct. Petitioner sought certiorari review. The Court vacated and held that an employer's conduct did not have to be egregious to satisfy the 1991 Act's punitive damages requirement. An employer was not vicariously liable for managerial agents' discriminatory decisions where the decisions were contrary to the employer's good-faith efforts to comply with Title VII. Employers who made good-faith efforts to prevent discrimination accomplished the objective of Title VII. The action was remanded to determine whether respondent acted with malice or reckless indifference to petitioner's Title VII rights.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. Ups, No. 97-1992,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An employer was properly granted summary judgment in an employee's ADA action as there was insufficient proof that the employee's impairment substantially limited his life activities and that the employer regarded the employee as disabled.
|
|||||
| Olmstead v. L. C. by Zimring, No. 98-536,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner healthcare officials institutionalized respondent mentally disabled persons. Respondents filed an action under, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II),, for petitioners' refusal to place respondents in a community-based treatment program. Respondents were granted partial summary judgment. Petitioners' argument that inadequate funding, not discrimination, accounted for the continual institution was rejected. The appellate court remanded for a reassessment of petitioners' cost-based defense. Petitioners sought certiorari review. The Court reversed in part and held that the appellate court's construction of the reasonable modifications regulation was unduly restrictive because petitioners were defenseless once respondents qualified for a community-based treatment program. Title II required petitioners to provide such treatment when treatment professionals determined that placement was appropriate, respondents did not oppose the treatment, and the placement was reasonably accommodated based on petitioners' financial resources and the needs of other mentally disabled people.
|
|||||
| Sutton v. United Air Lines, No. 97-1943,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 22, 1999, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The applicants, twin sisters, each suffered from severe myopia, which was correctable with appropriate lenses. They both applied for positions as pilots with the airline. The applicants contended that the airline's refusal to hire them as pilots because of their uncorrected visual acuity was based upon their disability and was impermissible discrimination under the ADA. The district court dismissed the applicants' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the appeals court affirmed the decision. The Court affirmed the decision below because a "disability" under the ADA had to be determined with regard to the corrective measures that were available and a person whose physical or mental impairment was corrected by medication or other measures did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.
|
|||||
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. |
