 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ariz. v. Cal., No. 8 Orig.,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Claims of Indian tribe and United States for increased water rights associated with disputed reservation boundary lands were not precluded by a consent decree or by a prior decision.
|
|||||
| Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, No. 99-474,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under principles of conflict preemption, state foreign trade law concerning Burma undermined the intended purpose of and was preempted by the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
|
|||||
| Miller v. French, Nos. 99-224 and 99-582,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 19, 2000, * Decided* Together with No. 99-582, United States v. French et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prison Litigation Reform Act prohibited court from exercising equitable authority to suspend automatic stay's operation when prison sought to terminate prospective injunction and did not violate separation of powers doctrine.
|
|||||
| Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, No. 99-62,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 19, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Respondent students brought an action against petitioner school district alleging violation of theof() for petitioner's policy of student led prayer prior to school football games. The trial court enjoined petitioner from implementing the policy as it stood, but permitted a modified policy. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed, with modifications, holding that both policies violated the. Petitioner petitioned for a writ of certiorari, claiming its policy did not violate thebecause the football game messages were private student speech, not public speech. The Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly determined that petitioner's policies violated thebecause the football game messages were public speech authorized by a government policy and taking place on government property at government-sponsored school-related events, and because the realities of petitioner's policy involved both perceived and actual government endorsement of the delivery of prayer at important school events.
|
|||||
| Apprendi v. New Jersey, No. 99-478,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose and one count of the third-degree offense of unlawful possession of an antipersonnel bomb. The state trial court enhanced the sentence under,(2000), finding by a preponderance of the evidence that petitioner acted with a purpose to intimidate an individual or group of individuals because of race. The sentence was affirmed on appeal. On writ of certiorari, the court reversed the judgment because the procedure was an unacceptable departure from the jury tradition. The Due Process Clause ofrequired that a jury on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt make the factual determination authorizing an increase in the maximum prison sentence.
|
|||||
| Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, No. 99-401,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: California statute providing any voter could vote in a party's primary was not narrowly tailored and did not advance compelling state interest. It violated the party's freedom of association and was unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| Dickerson v. United States, No. 99-5525,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 26, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner was indicted for bank robbery, conspiracy to commit bank robbery, and using a firearm in the course of committing a crime of violence. Before trial, petitioner moved to suppress a statement he had made at a Federal Bureau of Investigation field office, on the grounds that he had not received "Miranda warnings" before being interrogated. The district court granted his motion to suppress. The court of appeals reversed the suppression order, holding that, which made admissibility turn solely on whether the statement was made voluntarily, had been satisfied. On appeal, the court reversed, finding that Miranda was a constitutional decision of the court, and therefore could not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress. Further, following the principles of stare decisis, the court declined to overrule Miranda itself. The court held that Miranda and its progeny governed the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts.
|
|||||
| Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast v. United States, Nos. 99-244 and 99-253,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 26, 2000 *, Decided* Together with No. 99-253, Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a new statute prevented the United States from keeping a contractual promise, it repudiated the lease contracts and petitioners were entitled to restitution whether or not the contracts would have ultimately produced a financial gain.
|
|||||
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. |
