Volume 485 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 485 of the United States Reports:

At respondent's federal-court jury trial, which resulted in his conviction of counts of mail fraud involving arson-related insurance claims,… Held: The prosecutor's comment did not violate respondent's Fifth Amendment privilege to be free from compulsory self-incrimination. The trial court reasonably interpreted defense counsel's closing-argument remarks to mean that the Government had not allowed respondent to explain his side of the story either before or during trial.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Held: as the Court does today, that a criminal defendant may deny committing the elements of a crime, and then contend that the Government entrapped him into the offense. The remaining Circuits are far more restrained in their allowance of such inconsistent defenses, divided along the lines the majority discusses in its opinion. Ante, at 59-60, n. 1.

After the Secretary of Health and Human Services denied respondent's application for supplemental security income (SSI) benefits under Title XVI of the Social Security Act, respondent appealed to the… Held: A district court does not have the authority to order the Secretary to withhold a portion of past-due SSI benefits for the payment of attorney's fees received in judicial proceedings under Title XVI. Pp. 75-79. 799 F.2d 370 (CA8 1986), reversed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the

In 1982, a default judgment was entered against appellant in appellee medical center's Texas state-court suit to recover a sum allegedly due under appellant's… Held: The holding below contravenes this Court's precedents, under which a judgment entered without notice or service violates the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865; Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62.

In its 1985 opinion in this litigation, the Court ruled that Alabama and Mississippi, rather than the United States, own their… Held: Since the current phase of this litigation has so far dealt only with Mississippi Sound, and has not focused on Mississippi's interest south of that Sound, this Court will not on the present record determine the extent of Mississippi's rights thereto without the parties' complete agreement and the Special Master's ready acquiescence.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

Two years after respondent, a management-level employee in one of petitioner city's agencies, successfully appealed a temporary suspension to petitioner's Civil Service Commission (Commission), he… Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 798 F.2d 1168 (CA 8 1986), reversed and remanded. Justice O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice WHITE, and Justice SCALIA, concluded that: 1.

A "gray-market" good is a foreign-manufactured good that bears a valid United States trademark and is imported without the consent of the United States trademark owner. Held: The District Court had jurisdiction under both the general federal-question provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the specific provision regarding actions "arising under any Act of Congress relating to . . . trademarks." § 1338(a). P. 182. 2.

Respondents, who operate a family farm, obtained secured loans from petitioners. Held: The absolute priority rule applies, and respondents' promise of future labor warrants no exception to its operation. Pp. 202-211. (a) The dicta in Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., relied upon by the Court of Appeals, is not applicable here.

Arkansas Best Corporation v. Commissioner, 485 U.S. 212 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court decision that helps taxpayers classify whether or not the sale of an asset is an ordinary or capital gain or loss for income tax purposes.

Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the "fraud-on-the-market theory" as giving rise to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in securities fraud cases.

Petitioner sued respondent in state court for breach of contract. Held: A district court order denying a motion to stay or dismiss an action when a similar suit is pending in state court is not immediately appealable under § 1291 or § 1292(a)(1). Pp. 275-288.

Under a Michigan statute (Act 144), a public utility transporting natural gas in Michigan for public use must obtain approval of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) before issuing long-term… Held: The MPSC regulation of respondents through Act 144 impinges on a field that the federal regulatory scheme has occupied to the exclusion of state law, and Act 144 therefore is pre-empted. Pp. 300-310.

Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988), was a First Amendment rights case before the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs, a group protesting the Contra War and the jailing of Andrei Sakharov, challenged a District of Columbia code forbidding the display within 500 feet of an embassy of any sign that tends to bring the foreign government in question into "public odium" or "public disrepute."

Because Kentucky's usury law limited the annual interest rate for non-corporate borrowers, lenders willing to provide money only at higher rates required such borrowers to use a corporate nominee as… Held: The partnerships were the owners of the complexes for federal income tax purposes, since in each instance the relationship between them and the corporation was, in both form and substance, an agency with the partnership as principal.

Under § 5(e) of the Housing Act of 1937, certain state and local public housing agency obligations, commonly termed "Project Notes," are… Held: Section 5(e) of the Housing Act does not exempt Project Notes from federal estate taxation. The settled presumption against implied tax exemptions applies here, particularly since 26 U.S.C. §§ 2001 and 2002 (1982 ed. and Supp. III), which define the taxable estate for estate tax calculation, by their terms include Project Notes.

Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U.S. 360 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Freedom of Association under the First Amendment does not create a right to strike.

Under the Medicare program of the Social Security Act, a qualified provider of health care services, in order to obtain reimbursement from… Held: The Board may not decline to consider a provider's challenge to a regulation of the Secretary on the ground that the provider failed to contest the regulation's validity in the cost report submitted to its fiscal intermediary. The plain language of § 1395 oo (a) demonstrates that the Board had jurisdiction to entertain this action.

In 1981, the federal statute authorizing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was amended to provide that a family receiving nonrecurring lump-sum income is ineligible for… Held: The federal notice regulation was not violated by the Department. Pursuant to the regulation, the Department has distributed two printed brochures that generally describe the AFDC program and the recipient's duty to report all household income monthly.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. This area, also known as the High Country, was used by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site.

Under the nonclaim provision of Oklahoma's Probate Code, creditors' claims against an estate are generally barred unless they are… Held: If appellant's identity as a creditor was known or "reasonably ascertainable" by appellee (a fact which cannot be determined from the present record), the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by Mullane and Mennonite, requires that appellant be given notice by mail or such other means as is certain to ensure…

In 1973, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act (EPAA), which required the President to promulgate regulations governing allocation and pricing of petroleum products, and expressly… Held: The Department's regulations are not pre-empted. The test for federal pre-emption of Puerto Rico law is the same as the test under the Supremacy Clause for pre-emption of the law of a State.

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that section 310(b)(1) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) does not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

the District Court held that it was not foreclosed from exercising jurisdiction by 38 U.S.C. § 211(a), which bars judicial review of "the decisions of the… Held: The question whether the VA's alcoholism regulation violates the Rehabilitation Act is not foreclosed from judicial review by § 211(a). The presumption in favor of judicial review of administrative action may be overcome only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence of a contrary legislative intent.

Because a construction company building a department store for a tenant at petitioner's shopping mall allegedly paid substandard wages and fringe benefits, respondent union peacefully distributed… Held: The Court of Appeals did not err in construing § 8(b)(4) as not reaching respondent's handbilling. That construction makes it unnecessary to pass upon the serious First Amendment questions that would be raised by the Board's interpretation. Pp. 574-588.

The Private Express Statutes establish the postal monopoly and generally prohibit the private carriage of letters over postal routes without the payment of postage to the United States Postal Service. Held: Appellant's delivery of the union's unstamped letters would violate the Private Express Statutes. Pp. 594-603. (a) The letters-of-the-carrier exception, which permits the private carriage of letters that "relate" to the "current business" of the carrier, does not apply.

After respondent stopped making $150 monthly child support payments to his ex-wife under a California state-court order, he was served with an… Held: With regard to the determination of issues necessary to decide this case, the state appellate court ruled that whether the individual is able to comply with a court order is an element of the offense of contempt rather than an affirmative defense to the charge, and that § 1209.5 shifts to the alleged contemnor the burden of…

Petitioner, a passenger engineer employed by respondent railroad corporation (Amtrak), belongs to the United Transportation Union (UTU) rather than to respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers… Held: The RLA does not entitle a railroad employee to be represented at company-level grievance or disciplinary proceedings by a union other than his collective-bargaining representative.

On the basis of their employer's policy prohibiting its employees from using illegal nonprescription drugs, respondent drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation counselors were discharged for ingesting a… Held: These cases must be remanded to the State Supreme Court for a definitive ruling as to whether the religious use of peyote is legal in Oregon, since that question is relevant to the federal constitutional analysis.

Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that before admitting evidence of extrinsic acts under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal courts should assess the evidence's sufficiency under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b). Under 104(b), "[w]hen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition."

Respondents, a newspaper and its executive editor, violated a temporary restraining order issued by the District Court in a civil suit brought to enjoin dissemination of surveillance logs and… Held: Since the special prosecutor lacks authority to represent the United States before this Court, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Pp. 699-708.

Petitioner and another retailer (Hartwell) were authorized by respondent manufacturer to sell its electronic calculators in the Houston area. Held: A vertical restraint of trade is not per se illegal under § 1 of the Sherman Act unless it includes some agreement on price or price levels. Pp. 723-736. (a) Ordinarily, whether particular concerted action violates § 1 is determined through case-by-case application of the rule of reason.

Held: “[H]ad [Kungys] told the truth at the time he applied for his citizenship, the discrepancies between the truth and his visa materials would have resulted in either a field investigation or an outright denial of the petition.

Held: for example, that the pretrial broadcast of a defendant in the act of confessing to the charged crime inherently prejudiced the jury's ability to evaluate objectively his guilt. See Rideau v. Louisiana, supra. Similarly, we held that when key government witnesses doubled as official guardians of the jury during deliberations, the ability of the jury to assess witness credibility was presumptively prejudiced.

Held: however, that this determination is not binding on a federal court because the proper characterization of the statute in this case, which was brought in federal court, is a matter of federal procedural law. The court ruled that this statute is a mere limitation of liability, rather than an avoidance or an affirmative defense. This conclusion conflicts with the decisions of two other Courts of Appeals.