Volume 517 — United States Reports

Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.

Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996), is a Supreme court case that ruled that states could moderate national banks if doing so does not prevent or largely interfere with the national bank's ability to exercise its powers. Later, in 2004, the OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) authorized its preemption rule which declared that a national bank's ability to exert its incidental powers which include lending and deposit taking inhibited state laws that obstruct, impair or condition” the business of banking."

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that Article One of the U.S. Constitution did not give the United States Congress the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states that is further protected under the Eleventh Amendment. Such abrogation is permitted where it is necessary to enforce the rights of citizens guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment as per Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer. The case also held that the doctrine of Ex parte Young, which allows state officials to be sued in their official capacity for prospective injunctive relief, was inapplicable under these circumstances, because any remedy was limited to the one that Congress had provided.

Held: fall into this category because of their potential to “undermine the effectiveness of voters who wish to elect [particular] candidates.” Allen, 393 U. S., at 570 ; see also Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 40 (1978).

* A jury found petitioner guilty of one count of participating in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and one count of conducting a continuing criminal… Held: The District Court erred in sentencing petitioner to concurrent life sentences on the § 846 and § 848 counts. Pp. __-__.

At age 56, petitioner was fired by respondent corporation and replacedby a 40-year-old worker.He then filed this suit, alleging that hisdischarge violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).The District Court granted respondent's summary judgmentmotion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that petitionerfailed to make out a prima facie case of age discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U. S. 792, because he failed toshow that…

* Petitioner Lonchar was sentenced to death for murder nine years ago. In the years following the affirmance of his conviction and sentence, his sister and brother each filed ``next friend'' state habeas petitions, which Lonchar opposed, and Lonchar filed, and then had dismissed, a state habeas petition. Shortly before his scheduled execution, he filed another state habeas petition. When it was denied, he filed this ``eleventh hour'' federal petition, his first.

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. The court said the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge, and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.

See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. Held: The Board reasonably aligned the live-haul crews with Holly Farms' processing operations, typing them covered ''employee[s],'' not exempt ''agricultural laborer[s]''; therefore, the Fourth Circuit properly deferred to the Board's determination. Pp. ___-___.

At his trial on a federal marijuana charge, petitioner filed his motion for a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure District Court granted the motion even though it was filed one day outside the time limit prescribed by Rule 29(c), which provides, inter alia , that "[i]f the jury returns a verdict of guilty . . ., a motion for judgment of acquittal may be made or renewed within 7 days after the jury is discharged or within such further time as the…

United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that the burden of proof for selective prosecution rests with the defendant, who must show the government declined to prosecute similarly situated suspects of other races.

44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a complete ban on the advertising of alcohol prices was unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and that the Twenty-first Amendment, empowering the states to regulate alcohol, did not lessen other constitutional restraints of state power.

* The Internal Revenue Service filed claims in the Bankruptcy Court for taxes, interest, and penalties that accrued after debtor First Truck Lines, Inc., sought relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code but before the case was converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

* Petitioner union filed this suit, alleging that respondent company began to lay off workers in connection with the closing of one of its plants before giving the union the closing notice required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act), and seeking backpay for each of its affected members.

BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case limiting punitive damages under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case which held that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality violated the Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard". The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review. Romer was the first Supreme Court decision to address gay rights since Bowers v.

* Petitioner Henderson filed this suit under the Suits in Admiralty Act for injuries he received as a seaman aboard a vessel owned by the United States. He accomplished service on the United States in the manner and within the time allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which sets an extendable 120-day period for service.

* When a dispute arose between parties to a standard form franchise agreement for the operation of a Subway sandwich shop in Montana, respondent franchisee sued petitioners, franchisor Doctor's Associates, Inc. (DAI) and its agent, Lombardi, in a Montana state court. The court stayed the lawsuit pending arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause set out in ordinary type on page nine of the franchise agreement.

Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (1996), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that appellate courts should review probable cause determinations for warrantless searches de novo.

* Petitioner California Insurance Commissioner, as trustee over the assets of the Mission Insurance Company and its affiliates, filed a state court action against respondent Allstate Insurance Company, seeking, among other things, contract and tort damages for Allstate's alleged breach of reinsurance agreements. Allstate removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding a regulation of the Comptroller of Currency which included credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest and thus prevented individual states from limiting them when charged by nationally-chartered banks. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court that the regulation was reasonable enough under the Court's own Chevron standard for the justices to defer to the Comptroller. The decision, which had begun as a class action in California, was seen as a victory for banks and credit-card issuers, who could mostly charge late fees as they pleased. For that same reason consumer advocates were displeased, warning that late fees could rise to previously unseen levels.

Held: see Schick v. Reed, 419 U. S. 256, 260 (1974). * I am therefore not certain that this case even raises a delegation question, for if Loving can constitutionally be sentenced to death without proof of aggravating factors, he surely cannot claim that the President violated the Constitution by promulgating aggravating factors that afforded more protection than that to which Loving is constitutionally entitled.

* The day after petitioner Auciello Iron Works's outstanding contract offer was accepted by its employees' collective-bargaining representative (Union), Auciello disavowed the agreement because of its good-faith doubt, based on knowledge acquired before the offer's acceptance, that a majority of its employees supported the Union.

* Petitioners, who are privately employed in Jefferson County, filed a state-court class action claiming that the county's occupation tax violates the Federal and Alabama Constitutions.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996), was a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision that "declared that any traffic offense committed by a driver was a legitimate legal basis for a stop."

Petitioner Exxon's oil tanker, the Houston, ran aground and was lost several hours after its "breakout" from a mooring facility owned and operated, or manufactured, by the various respondents. Exxon filed a complaint in admiralty against respondents, alleging, inter alia , negligence and breach of warranty.

* Pursuant to Section(s) 4371 of the Internal Revenue Code, respondent International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) paid a tax on insurance premiums remitted to foreign insurers to cover shipments of goods to its foreign subsidiaries.

Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U.S. 882 (1996), is a US labor law case, concerning occupational pensions.

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning redistricting and racial gerrymandering. This case and its predecessor, Shaw v. Reno, concerned North Carolina's congressional redistricting plans. The Court ruled in Shaw v. Hunt that the redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning racial gerrymandering, where racial minority majority-electoral districts were created during Texas' 1990 redistricting to increase minority Congressional representation. The Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, held that race was the predominant factor in the creation of the districts and that under a strict scrutiny standard the three districts were not narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.