United States Supreme Court (23 summaries)
Ayestas v. Davis
A funding request under 18 U.S.C. §3599(f) requires the funding applicant to show that a reasonable attorney would regard the services as sufficiently important.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Murphy v. Smith
Under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(d)(2), a district court must use as much of a prisoner’s judgment as necessary, without exceeding 25%, to discharge an award of attorney’s fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense
Challenges to the Waters of the United States Rule must be filed in federal district courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Murr v. Wisconsin
Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, common ownership of two adjacent lots may be considered as a single property for the purposes of the categorical takings analysis of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1014 (1992) and the regulatory takings inquiry of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board
When the Merit Systems Protection Board, created under the Civil Service Reform Act, dismisses a mixed case on jurisdictional grounds, the proper forum for review is federal district court.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.
California courts lack specific jurisdiction over nonresidents’ claims when there is an insufficient connection between the forum and the claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Jenkins v. Hutton
The Sixth Circuit was incorrect in holding that it could review Respondent’s claim, that the trial court violated his due process rights during the penalty phase of his trial, under the miscarriage of justice exception to procedural default.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Advocate Health Care Network, et al. v. Stapleton, et al.
A pension plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a “church plan,” regardless of who established it, and is exempt from ERISA’s requirements.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, Attorney General
For statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16 years.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
The Hague Service Convention allows for service of process by mail.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Kindred Nursing Centers, L. P. v. Clark
The Kentucky Supreme Court’s clear-statement rule that a power of attorney does not allow a representative to enter into an arbitration agreement without expressly providing that the representative may do so violates the Federal Arbitration Agreement.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Manrique v. United States
When a defendant seeks appellate review of an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case, the defendant must file a notice of appeal from that order.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Moore v. Texas
When evaluating an individual’s intellectual capacity to enforce the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, a State must look to the medical community’s diagnostic framework.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.
When distributing an estate’s assets under a structured dismissal of the Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11, the bankruptcy court cannot deviate from basic priority rules that apply under the Code without consent of the affected creditors.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
If a juror makes a statement that exhibits overt racial bias and casts serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations, then the no-impeachment rule must give way to allow the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Et. Al. v. Apple Inc.
When determining a damages award for patent infringement under section 289 of the Patent Act, the relevant “article of manufacture” does not solely refer to the product sold to consumers but can also refer to components of the product.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Visa Inc., Et Al. v. Osborn, Sam, Et Al And Visa Inc., Et Al. v. Stoumbos, Mary, Et Al.
Whether allegations that a member of a business association adhered to the association’s rules and possessed governance rights in the association are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Richard Mathis v. United States
If, for purposes of determining penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the court finds that a defendant was previously convicted under a statute with alternative means of satisfying one element of a crime, then the court shall determine whether the elements of the prior conviction, and not the facts of the records except for limited circumstances, sufficiently match the elements of the Act’s generic crimes
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Taylor v. United States
The prosecution in a Hobbs Act case satisfies the Act’s commerce element when it proves that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob a drug dealer of drugs or drug proceeds.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar
The implied false certification theory of the False Claims Act can be a basis for liability when a defendant makes representations about the goods or services that it provides, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material legal requirements that make those representations misleading half-truths. Liability does not turn on whether the requirements are expressly designated as conditions of payment.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle
Pursuant to the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the United States and Puerto Rico may not prosecute a single person for the same offense under analogous criminal laws.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Green v. Brennan
In a constructive discharge claim, the “matter alleged to be discriminatory” includes an employee’s resignation and therefore, the 45-day limitation period begins to run only after the employee resigns.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC
A judgment on the merits is not necessary to find that a defendant has prevailed for the purposes of determining whether a defendant can recover attorney’s fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (11 summaries)
Madison v. Alabama
Whether, under the Eighth Amendment, a state may execute prisoner when the prisoner does not remember the capital offense for which he is to be executed due to cognitive impairments.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Pereira v. Sessions
Whether, under the stop-time rule, a notice to appear ends a period of continued residence if the notice does not contain the time and place at which the proceedings will be held.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Hughes v. United States
Whether a defendant who enters into a plea agreement is eligible for a sentence reduction when there is a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines applicable to the defendant’s sentencing range.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
Whether a Minnesota Statute that bans voters from wearing any political badge, political button, or other political insignia at the polling place is facially overbroad under the First Amendment?
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
United States v. Microsoft Corporation
Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2703 to disclose material that the provider stored abroad.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hall, Elsa v. Hall, Samuel, et al.
Whether, in single district consolidated cases, the entry of a final judgement in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Whether inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding used by the Patent and Trademark Office to determine the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitutional right to an Article III forum and a jury.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Artis v. District of Columbia
Whether the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statute of limitation period while a state-law claim is pending in federal court and for an additional 30 days after it is dismissed, or whether the statute of limitation period continues running while the state-law claim is pending in federal court but the plaintiff has a 30-day grace period to refile that state-law claim after it is dismissed.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Class v. United States
Whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he or she was convicted?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
Whether a patentee’s post-sale restrictions on the use or sale of its patented articles allows the patentee to avoid the doctrine of exhaustion upon first sale. Also, whether the doctrine of exhaustion applies when a U.S. patentee sells its articles abroad?
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Gloucester County School Board v. G. G.
Whether an agency’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 should be afforded deference pursuant to Auer v. Robbins, when that interpretation requires schools to allows transgender students the use of facilities on the basis of their gender identity and the interpretation was unpublished and issued solely in response to the present controversy?
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law