 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Sinkfield v. Kelley, Nos. 00-132, 00-133,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 27, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Voters lacked standing to bring action alleging unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, as they did not allege or produce evidence that they were assigned to district as direct result of having personally been subjected to racial classification.
|
|||||
| City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, No. 99-1030,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Petitioner city operated vehicle checkpoints to interdict unlawful drugs. At each checkpoint location, the police stopped a predetermined number of vehicles. Pursuant to written directives, an officer advised the driver that he or she was being stopped at a drug checkpoint and asked the driver to produce a license and registration. The officer looked for signs of impairment and conducted an open-view examination of the vehicle from the outside. A narcotics-detection dog walked around the outside of each stopped vehicle. Respondents were stopped at a narcotics checkpoint and filed a class action lawsuit against petitioners, claiming that the roadblocks violated. Respondents' preliminary injunction motion was denied, but this decision was reversed on appeal. On certiorari, the court affirmed the determination that the checkpoints violatedbecause the primary purpose of the narcotics checkpoint program was to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Because the authorities pursued primarily general crime control purposes at the checkpoints, the stops could only be justified by some quantum of individualized suspicion.
|
|||||
| E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers, No. 99-1038,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, November 28, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration award, under collective bargaining agreement, requiring reinstatement of truck driver after second failed random drug test, was upheld. Award was not contrary to explicit, well defined, dominant public policy.
|
|||||
| Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., No. 00-836,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 4, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment extending statutory deadlines for return of election ballot counts was vacated. It was unclear as to extent state court saw the state constitution as limiting the legislature's authority under the U.S. Constitution.
|
|||||
| Green Tree Fin. Corporation-Alabama v. Randolph, No. 99-1235,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court had concluded that the trial court's order compelling arbitration between respondent purchaser and petitioner financing companies and dismissing respondent's claims was appealable underof the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but that the arbitration provision was unenforceable due to potentially prohibitive costs. The court concluded that the trial court's decision ordering arbitration and dismissing respondent's claims for relief was appealable because it was a final decision underin that it plainly disposed of the entire case on the merits and left no part pending before the trial court. The court rejected the independent/embedded proceeding distinction for purposes of determining whether a decision was final within the meaning of. However, the lower court erred in determining that the arbitration was unenforceable because the record did not contain sufficient information related to respondent's costs if the matter was arbitrated. Thus, the risk that she would have been saddled with prohibitive costs in enforcing her statutory rights was too speculative to justify invalidating the arbitration agreement.
|
|||||
| Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Duncan, 00-404,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 11, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bush v. Gore, 00-949,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Bush v. Gore, No. 00-949,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, December 12, 2000, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The lower court had ordered a manual recount of votes cast in one county and had ordered that the votes for respondent presidential candidate identified in two other counties be included in the certified vote totals. The Court granted the writ of certiorari to determine whether the recount procedures adopted by the lower court were consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded that the lower court's decision violated theofbecause the lower court failed to identify and require standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots. Moreover, the decision to include a partial total from one county gave no assurance that the recounts included in the final certification were required to be complete. Thus, the recount procedures were inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
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. |
