|
|
| |
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 - June 25 - June 28, 2001
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
INS v. St. Cyr, No. 00-767,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The INS argued that statutory amendments to the federal immigration statutes had withdrawn the United States Attorney General's authority to waive deportation for aliens previously convicted of aggravated felonies and had eliminated federal court jurisdiction to decide whether such authority existed. The court concluded that the district courts retained habeas jurisdiction underbecause interpreting the cited amendments to entirely precluded review raised substantial constitutional questions under the Suspension Clause,. Moreover, the cited amendments did not contain a clear and unambiguous statement of constitutional intent to bar jurisdiction pursuant to, nor did they provide another judicial forum to decide pure questions of law. Relief pursuant toremained available for the alien, who was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement and who was eligible forrelief at the time of his plea, because nothing in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), unmistakably indicated that the repeal ofapplied retroactively.
|
|
| |
N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini, No. 00-201,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 25, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The Supreme Court held that the databases reproduced and distributed articles standing alone and not in context, not as part of the collective work to which the author contributed, or as part of any revision thereof, or as part of any later collective work in the same series under. The authors had registered the copyrights for each article, while the print publishers registered collective work copyrights in each periodical edition in which an article originally appeared. The electronic publishers' databases did not reproduce and distribute the articles as part of either the original edition or a revision of that edition. An article's mark of origin did not mean the article was reproduced or distributed as part of the periodical. Unlike microforms, the databases did not reproduce articles as part of the collective work or as part of any revision. Media neutrality protected authors' rights to the extent the articles were presented individually within the databases. The storage and retrieval systems effectively overrode authors' exclusive rights. The electronic publishers were not selling equipment; they sold copies of the articles.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, Nos. 00-596 and 00-597,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: First, the court held that respondent attorney general's outdoor and point-of-sale advertising regulations targeting cigarettes were pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA),The FCLAA's pre-emption provision did not permit a distinction between concern about minors and cigarette advertising and the more general concern about smoking and health in cigarette advertising. Further, a distinction between state regulation of the location as opposed to content of cigarette advertising had no foundation in the text of the pre-emption provision. As to theissues, the court found that the attorney general failed to show that the outdoor advertising regulations for smokeless tobacco and cigars were not more extensive than necessary to advance the state's interest in preventing underage tobacco use. Also, the point-of-sale advertising regulations failed both the third and fourth steps of the Central Hudson analysis. However, the regulation barring self-service displays for tobacco withstoodscrutiny, as those regulations were narrowly tailored to prevent access to tobacco products by minors.
|
|
| |
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, No. 99-2047,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The landowner was a shareholder in a corporation that invested in the subject property. The resource management council promulgated regulations designating salt marshes such as those on the property as protected coastal wetlands. The landowner subsequently became the corporation's sole owner. When the corporate charter was revoked, title passed to the landowner. The council denied the landowner's application to fill the property. The landowner filed a takings action, which was rejected in state court. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The state court erred in finding that the claims were unripe, because the landowner obtained a final decision from the council determining the permitted use for the land. The state court also erred in ruling that acquisition of title after the effective date of the regulations barred the claims. However, the state court did not err in finding that the landowner failed to establish a deprivation of all economic value, because it was undisputed that the upland portion of the parcel retained significant worth for construction of a residence. The case was remanded so the claims could be examined under the Penn Central analysis.
|
|
| |
|
| |
Zadvydas v. Davis, Nos. 99-7791 and 00-38,
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, June 28, 2001, Decided
View this case - free
|
Overview: The aliens in both cases were ordered removed after having been admitted to the United States. Immigration and Naturalization authorities could not locate a country amenable to receive the deportable aliens, so the aliens were detained indefinitely. Both aliens filed for habeas corpus relief under, which the Court held was proper for jurisdictional purposes. The issue before the Court was whetherauthorized the Attorney General, in his sole discretion, to detain a removable alien indefinitely beyond the 90-day removal period or only for a period reasonably necessary to secure the alien's removal. The Court interpretedas containing an implicit "reasonable time" limitation of six months, the application of which was subject to federal court review. The civil confinement at issue was not limited, but potentially permanent. Also, the detention provision did not apply narrowly, but broadly to aliens ordered removed for many reasons, including tourist visa violations. Moreover, the sole procedural protections available to the alien were administrative proceedings where the alien bore the burden of proving he was not dangerous.
|
|
| |
Back to Top |
| |
|
Worldwide
Feedback
Feedback