Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
A Medicaid provider does not have a private right of action to sue under the Medicaid Act because the Supremacy Clause does not give the right to do so.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Grady v. North Carolina
The Supreme Court will not examine the issue of whether North Carolina's satellite based monitoring is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment when the State's appellate courts did not first examine the reasonableness of the search.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Woods v. Donald
A temporary absence by defense counsel is not ineffective assistance of counsel per se under U.S. v. Cronic when it occurs during testimony about co-defendants that defense counsel deems irrelevant to defendant’s theory of the case.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
The redistribution of majority-minority voters into fewer districts is unconstitutional when it decreases the overall strength of voters within the state.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Under Section VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a pregnant worker pursuing a claim that an employer is in violation of the Act through disparate treatment can establish a prima facie case, under the analysis in McDonald Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792., by showing she is a member of a protected class, she requested accommodation, the employer did not provide accommodation, and the employer accommodated others “similar in their ability to work.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
Providing that the elements of issue preclusion are met, if the usage adjudicated by the administrative agency are materially the same as the usage adjudicated by the district court, issue preclusion should apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
OMNICARE, INC. v. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL CONSTR. INDUSTRY PENSION FUND
A statement in connection with a public stock offering is not an untrue statement of fact strictly because it is incorrect, but rather it also needs to be misleading.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads
When Amtrak assists the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in creating metrics and standards for rail travel it is acting as a government entity.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Kansas v. Nebraska et. al
Whether Nebraska violated 1943 Congressional agreement and 2003 settlement on the apportionment of waters of the Republican River between Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado and if so, what remedy is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn.
Under the Federal Administrative Procedures Act (APA), a federal agency is not required to engage in notice and comment procedures when amending and existing interpretive rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Alabama’s sales and use tax exemption for diesel fuel purchases by motor carriers and water carriers, but not rail carriers, does not violate the Railroad Revitalization and Reform Act, 49 USC 11501 et. seq. because Alabama does not treat similarly situated taxpayers differently and provides sufficient justification for their different tax treatment of water carriers.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl
The Tax Injunction Act does not bar suits in federal district courts where petitioners seek to enjoin enforcement of notice and reporting requirements, which is different than assessment, collection, or levy of taxes.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law