Volume 496 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 496 of the United States Reports:

After Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263, 104 S.Ct. 3049, 82 L.Ed.2d 200, held that Hawaii's liquor excise tax scheme which… Held: The Eleventh Amendment—which provides in part that the federal "[j]udicial power . . . shall not . . . extend to any suit . . . commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens"—does not preclude the Supreme Court's exercise of appellate jurisdiction over cases brought against States that arise from state courts.

The Internal Revenue Code directs "every person receiving any payment for facilities or services" subject to excise taxes to "collect the amount of the tax from the person making such payment." 26… Held: AIA's trust-fund tax payments from its general accounts were transfers of property held in trust and therefore cannot be avoided as preferences. Pp. 58-67.

English v. General Electric, 496 U.S. 72 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is not pre-empted by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.

Peel v. Attorney Disciplinary Commission of Illinois, 496 US 91 (1990), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that Illinois' rule against attorneys advertising themselves as "certified" violated their freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (IARDC) had found that Peel's letterhead, which stated that he was "Certified Civil Trial Specialist By the National Board of Trial Advocacy," had broken state professional rules, and the Illinois Supreme Court had adopted their recommendation of public sanction. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, saying the letterhead was truthful, and the First Amendment favored disclosure over concealing information.

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence which is in plain view. The discovery of the evidence does not have to be inadvertent, although that is a characteristic of most legitimate plain-view seizures. The opinion clarified the plain view doctrine of the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) directs a court to award fees and other expenses to private parties who prevail in litigation against the United States if, inter alia, the… Held: A second "substantial justification" finding is not required before EAJA fees are awarded for fee litigation itself. Pp. 158-166. (a) The EAJA's "substantial justification" requirement is a single finding that operates as a clear threshold for determining a prevailing party's fee eligibility.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Court's decision in American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Scheiner did not apply retroactively.

Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.

Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that held that undercover police agents did not need to give Miranda warnings when talking to suspects in jail. Miranda warnings, named after the 1966 Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, are generally required when police interrogate suspects in custody in order to protect the right not to self-incriminate and the right to counsel under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. However, the Court ruled that potential coercion must be evaluated from the suspect's point of view, and if they are unaware that they are speaking to police, they are not under the coercive pressure of a normal interrogation.

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that by a 5–4 decision invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. It was argued together with United States v. Haggerty. It built on the Court's decision the prior year in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas statute banning flag burning.

Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment. The majority opinion ruled that anonymous tips can provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop provided that police can factually verify the circumstances asserted by the tip.

Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court concerning the Militia Clauses of Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution, in which the court held that Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to active federal duty for purposes of training outside the United States without either the consent of the governor of the affected state or the declaration of a national emergency. The plaintiff was Rudy Perpich, governor of Minnesota at the time. In 1986, after governors George Deukmejian of California and Joseph E.

State as well as federal courts have jurisdiction over suits brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which creates a remedy for violations of federal rights committed by persons acting under color of… Held: A state-law "sovereign immunity" defense is not available to a school board in a § 1983 action brought in a state court that otherwise has jurisdiction when such defense would not be available if the action were brought in a federal forum. Pp. 361-383.

Respondents, the defendants in a District Court suit instituted by petitioner law firm on behalf of a client, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as… Held: A voluntary Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissal does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over a Rule 11 motion. This view is consistent with Rule 11's purposes of deterring baseless filings and streamlining federal court procedure and is not contradicted by anything in that Rule or Rule 41(a)(1)(i). Pp. 393-398.

Held: are “sufficiently unusual and extreme that no concern is warranted about exposing the public treasury to estoppel in broad or numerous categories of cases.” Id., at 301 .

Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. The Court held 6-3 that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of "reasonable search and seizure." However, upon remand to the Michigan Supreme Court, that court held that the checkpoints nonetheless violated the Michigan constitution and remain prohibited.

In determining whether a family's income disqualifies it from receiving benefits under the Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program of Part A of Title IV… Held: Title II "child's insurance benefits" do not constitute "child support" within the meaning of § 602(a)(8)(A)(vi). The clear and unambiguous language of the statute demonstrates that Congress used "child support" throughout Title IV as a term of art referring exclusively to payments from absent parents.

To qualify for federal financial assistance to help defray the cost of furnishing medical care to the needy under the Medicaid Act, States must submit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services… Held: The Boren Amendment is enforceable in a § 1983 action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by health care providers. Pp. 508-524.

The Clean Air Act was amended in 1970 to deal with a perceived national air-pollution emergency. Held: EPA is not required to act on a proposed SIP revision within four months. Since § 110(a)(2)'s 4-month requirement was enacted as one of a series of deadlines designed to assure quick implementation of pollution-control requirements, that section refers only to the action required on the original SIP and not to a revision.

Between 1972 and 1981, petitioner Texaco sold gasoline at its retail tank wagon prices to respondent independent Texaco retailers but granted substantial discounts to distributors Gull and Dompier. Held: Respondents have satisfied their burden of proving that Texaco violated the Act. Pp. 554-571.

Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 US 582 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Self-incrimination Clause of the 5th Amendment and the meaning of “testimonial” under the 5th Amendment. A drunk-driving suspect, Muniz, made several incriminating statements while in police custody, and the Supreme Court held that only one of these statements was inadmissible because it was incriminating and testimonial. This testimonial statement was the suspect’s confused response when the police officer asked him for the date when he turned six years old. The other statements were admissible because they either counted as physical evidence for 5th Amendment purposes or fell under the routine booking exception to Miranda v. Arizona.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), which is not further divided into subsections, provides, inter alia, that: An individual may obtain judicial review of a final decision of the… Held: The Secretary may immediately appeal a district court order effectively invalidating regulations limiting the kinds of inquiries that must be made to determine entitlement to disability insurance benefits and remanding a claim to the Secretary for consideration without those restrictions. Pp. 623-631.

Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) includes a mandatory Government insurance program that protects… Held: The PBGC's restoration decision was not arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law under § 706(2)(A). Pp. 645-656. (a) The PBGC's failure to consider and discuss the "policies and goals" underlying federal bankruptcy and labor law did not, as the Court of Appeals held, render the restoration decision arbitrary and capricious.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case related to patent infringement in the medical device industry. It held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) of United States patent law exempted premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from a finding of infringement.