Volume 493 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 493 of the United States Reports:

Texas law provides that any party dissatisfied with a State Industrial Accident Board workers' compensation ruling may bring a civil suit to set the decision aside. Held: The direct action proviso does not apply to actions brought in federal court by an insurer. The proviso's language unambiguously applies only to actions against insurers and does not mention actions by insurers. This reading is reinforced by the proviso's legislative history.

Subsection (a)(1) of the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972, permits any person to commence a civil action against an alleged… Held: Where a party suing under RCRA's citizen suit provision fails to meet the notice and 60-day delay requirements of § 6972(b), the action must be dismissed as barred by the terms of the statute. Pp. 25-33.

who were laborers doing housekeeping and janitorial services, occurred while they were undertaking one of their duties: cleaning spilled coal from loading equipment to prevent fouling. Held: Respondents were engaged in maritime employment within the meaning of § 902(3). Pp. 45-48.

Prior to the 1979 seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran, appellees, an American parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary (hereinafter Sperry), entered into contracts with the… Held: Section 502 is not unconstitutional. Pp. 59-66. (a) Section 502 does not violate the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Sperry has not identified any of its property that was taken without just compensation.

Pursuant to a multiemployer collective-bargaining agreement, respondent union operates a hiring hall through which it refers both members and nonmembers for… Held: The District Court did not lack jurisdiction over petitioner's fair representation suit. Pp. 73-90. (a) The NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over a union member's claim that his union breached its duty of fair representation by discriminating against him in job referrals made by the union hiring hall.

After this Court held that respondent city had violated federal law by conditioning the renewal of petitioner's taxicab franchise on settlement of a pending labor dispute between petitioner and its… Held: Petitioner is entitled to maintain a § 1983 action for compensatory damages. Pp. 105-113. (a) The Supremacy Clause, of its own force, does not create rights enforceable under § 1983.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides in pertinent part that pleadings and other papers shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, which signature… Held: When read in the context of all of Rule 11's signature provisions, the phrase "person who signed" connotes the individual signer mentioned at the outset of the Rule and authorizes a court to impose a sanction only against that individual.

In 1970 and 1971, Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited (Goodyear G.B.), a wholly owned subsidiary of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company (Goodyear), a domestic corporation, filed… Held: "Accumulated profits," as that term appears in § 902's indirect tax credit, are to be calculated in accordance with domestic tax principles. Pp. 138-145.

In connection with a 1978 periodic audit, respondent defense contractor and petitioner Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) corresponded concerning respondent's accounting treatment of certain costs. Held: Exemption 7 may be invoked to prevent the disclosure of documents not originally created for, but later gathered for, law enforcement purposes.

After petitioner employer ordered a reduction in force and discharged or demoted some 1,200 workers, respondent affected employees filed in the District Court a collective action… Held: District courts have discretion, in appropriate cases, to implement § 216(b), as incorporated by § 626(b), in ADEA actions by facilitating notice to potential plaintiffs. However, as did the Court of Appeals, this Court declines to examine the terms of the notice used here. Pp. 169-174.

University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 493 U.S. 182 (1990), is a US labor law case of the US Supreme Court holding neither common law evidentiary privilege, nor First Amendment academic freedom protects peer review materials that are relevant to charges of racial or sexual discrimination in tenure decisions.

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 493 U.S. 203 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court addressed whether customer deposits constituted taxable income to a public utility company.

Respondent city of Dallas adopted a comprehensive ordinance regulating "sexually oriented businesses," which are defined to include "adult" arcades, bookstores, video stores, cabarets, motels, and… Held: The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and the cases are remanded. 837 F.2d 1298, (CA 5 1988), affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. Justice O'CONNOR delivered the

In 1985, in a suit brought by the United States, the city of Yonkers and its community development agency were held liable for intentionally enhancing segregation in housing in violation of Title… Held: In the circumstances of this case, the portion of the District Court's July 26 order imposing contempt sanctions against petitioner individual councilmembers if they failed to vote in favor of the ordinance was an abuse of discretion under traditional equitable principles.

James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court forbade the admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment for the use of impeaching statements made by a defense witness.

Respondents—foreign corporations and sole shareholders of domestic corporations conducting business in California—brought separate suits… Held: Respondents have Article III standing. A judicial determination that the Board's accounting method is unconstitutional would prevent the actual financial injury to respondents that would be caused by a tax that illegally reduced the return on their investments in their subsidiaries and lowered the value of their stockholdings.

Petitioner Dowling was convicted of robbing a Virgin Islands bank while wearing a ski mask and carrying a small pistol. Held: The admission of the testimony did not violate the collateral-estoppel component of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The collateral-estoppel doctrine prohibits the Government from relitigating an issue of ultimate fact that has been determined by a valid and final judgment, Ashe v.

Petitioner Guidry, a former official of respondent union and trustee of one of respondent pension plans, pleaded guilty to embezzling funds from the union in violation of § 501(c) of the… Held: The constructive trust violates ERISA's prohibition on assignment or alienation of pension benefits. Pp. 371-377. (a) The constructive trust remedy is prohibited by § 206(d)(1) unless some exception to the general statutory ban is applicable. Cf. Mackey v.

California law requires retailers to pay a 6% sales tax on in-state sales of tangible personal property and to collect from state residents a 6% use tax on such property purchased outside the State. Held: California's imposition of sales and use tax liability on appellant's sales of religious materials does not contravene the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Pp. 384-397.

According to respondent's complaint, petitioners obtained a construction contract from the Nigerian Government by bribing Nigerian officials. Held: The act of state doctrine does not apply because nothing in the present suit requires a court to declare invalid the official act of a foreign sovereign. See, e.g., Ricaud v. American Metal Co., 246 U.S. 304, 38 S.Ct. 312, 62 L.Ed. 733.

A group of lawyers in private practice who regularly acted as court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants in District of Columbia criminal cases agreed at a meeting of the… Held: Respondents' boycott constituted a horizontal arrangement among competitors that was unquestionably a naked restraint of price and output in violation of the antitrust laws. Respondents' proffered social justifications for the restraint of trade do not make the restraint any less unlawful.

Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to decide civil claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Held: that the king need not assign his cause of challenge, till all the panel is gone through, and unless there cannot be a full jury without the persons so challenged.

Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act, particularly the statutory standard of "comparable severity". The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the functional evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims.

Based on evidence that respondent Bouknight had abused petitioner Maurice M., her infant son, petitioner Baltimore City Department of Social Services (BCDSS) secured a juvenile court order removing… Held: A mother who is the custodian of her child pursuant to a court order may not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist a subsequent court order to produce the child. Pp. 554-562.

Held: tersely, that "the jury was properly instructed as to all matters and findings that they were required to make, including but not limited to evidence in mitigation of punishment." App. D to Pet. for Cert. The State Supreme Court, without addressing petitioner's challenge to the instructions, refused to hear his appeal. 11 Two central principles pervade this Court's capital punishment jurisprudence.