Volume 506 — United States Reports

Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a US Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

* Pursuant to its jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §§ 7402(b) and 7604(a), the District Court ordered a state-court Clerk to comply with a summons issued by the Internal… Held: Compliance with the summons enforcement order did not moot the Church's appeal. Delivery of the tapes to the IRS did not mandate dismissal by making it impossible for the Court of Appeals to grant the Church "any effectual relief." See Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293.

* In 1986, respondent Raley was charged with robbery and with being a persistent felony offender under a Kentucky statute that enhances sentences for repeat… Held: Kentucky's burden-of-proof scheme is permissible under the Due Process Clause. Pp. ____. (a) "Tolerance for a spectrum of state procedures dealing with [recidivism] is especially appropriate" given the high rate of recidivism and the diversity of approaches that States have developed for addressing it. Spencer v.

* RICHMOND v. LEWIS, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al. Following a sentencing hearing on petitioner Richmond's first degree murder conviction, the Arizona trial judge found three… Held: Richmond's death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. The (F)(6) factor was unconstitutionally vague at the time the sentencing judge gave it weight. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 654, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 3073, 111 L.Ed.2d 511.

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy interests, in both criminal as well as civil contexts. Finally, saying that "certain wrongs affect more than a single right", the Court left open the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against deprivation of property without due process of law may also be implicated.

* After private plaintiffs brought suit against private defendants in the District Court to quiet title to certain land riparian to the Mississippi River, Louisiana intervened in the… Held: The uncompromising language of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), which gives to this Court "original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States" (emphasis added), deprived the District Court of jurisdiction over Louisiana's third-party complaint against Mississippi.

* The Government filed a civil action in the District Court, alleging that a particular residence was subject to forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) because its owner had purchased it with… Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 932 F.2d 1433 (CA 11 1991), reversed and remanded.

* Petitioners, coadministrators of decedent Farrar's estate, sought $17 million in compensatory damages, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, from respondent Hobby and other Texas… Held: A plaintiff who wins nominal damages is a prevailing party under § 1988. A plaintiff "prevails" when actual relief on the merits of his claim materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant's behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.

* Section 2(c)(2) of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Equity Amendment Act of 1990 requires employers who provide health insurance for their employees to provide equivalent… Held: Section 2(c)(2) is pre-empted by ERISA. A state law "relate[s] to" a covered benefit plan for § 514(a) purposes if it refers to or has a connection with such a plan, even if the law is not designed to affect the plan or the effect is only indirect. See, e.g., Ingersoll-Rand Co. v.

* Petitioner, an autonomous Puerto Rico government instrumentality, moved to dismiss the diversity action brought against it by respondent, a private firm, on… Held: States and state entities that claim to be "arms of the State" may take advantage of the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528, to appeal a district court order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court.

* Upon learning after he retired that he suffered from a work-related hearing loss, respondent Brown, a former employee of petitioner Bath Iron Works Corp.,… Held: Claims for hearing loss, whether filed by current workers or retirees, are claims for a scheduled injury and must be compensated under § 8(c)(13), not § 8(c)(23). Respondent Director's undisputed characterization of occupational hearing loss as a condition that does cause immediate disability must be accepted.

Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in which the court decided whether a portion of a dwelling unit exclusively used as a principal place of business for any trade or business of a taxpayer would allow a deduction to the taxpayer's income taxes under Internal Revenue Code Section 280A(c)(1)(A).

* In a suit filed in the District Court against petitioner state correctional officers, respondent, a representative association of inmates in a California… Held: Only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis under § 1915. Pp. ____. (a) "Context," as used in 1 U.S.C. § 1, means the text of the Act of Congress surrounding the word at issue or the texts of other related congressional acts, and this is simply an instance of the word's ordinary meaning.

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.

Held: “[W]here the offense is not capital and the accused is not in custody, ... if, after the trial has begun in his presence, he voluntarily absents himself, this does not nullify what has been done or prevent the completion of the trial, but, on the contrary, operates as a waiver of his right to be present and leaves the court free to proceed with the trial in like manner and with like effect as if he were present.”…

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1985(3) of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Alexandria Health Clinic, along with several other abortion clinics, sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from blocking the entrance to clinics in Washington D.C.

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that failure to make an objection under Collins v. Lockhart did not constitute undue prejudice required by Strickland v. Washington, because the error did not cause a fundamentally unfair trial, as opposed to merely a different outcome of the case.

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 6 votes to 3 that a claim of actual innocence does not entitle a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief by way of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the assertion that attempted monopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct. Instead, conduct of a single firm could be held to be unlawful attempted monopolization only when it actually monopolized or dangerously threatened to do so. Thus, the Court rejected the conclusion that injury to competition could be presumed to follow from certain conduct. The causal link must be demonstrated.

* Petitioner Graham's capital murder conviction and death sentence became final in 1984. Held: Graham's claim is barred because the relief he seeks would require announcement of a new rule of constitutional law, in contravention of the principles set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (plurality opinion). Pp. ____.

* Subchapter § of the Internal Revenue Code seeks to eliminate tax disadvantages that might dissuade small businesses from adopting the corporate form and to lessen the tax burden on such businesses… Held: The limitations period for assessing the income tax liability of an § corporation shareholder runs from the date on which the shareholder's return is filed.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that severance is not automatically required in every case where co-defendants desire to make mutually antagonistic defenses. That is, a court is not required to split one trial with many defendants into many trials with one defendant each as soon as the defendants start arguing that their co-defendants are the ones at fault and vice versa. The defendants must show that one of their rights will be prejudiced unless the case is severed before severance is required. And, even if there is prejudice, it is possible that that may be cured with jury instructions rather than severance.

* Under § 57(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 57(a)(8) (1976 ed.), "the excess of the deduction for depletion . . . over the adjusted basis of" "property (as defined in [§]… Held: The term "adjusted basis," as used in § 57(a)(8), does not include the depreciable drilling and development costs identified in Treas.Reg. § 1.612-4(c)(1). Pp. ____.

Held: an employer bears the burden of proving that a bona fide *966 business-related reason exists for using a gender-neutral factor that results in a wage differential. Id., at 526 .