Volume 519 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 519 of the United States Reports:

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.

Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (1996), held that federal jurisdiction predicated on diversity of citizenship can be sustained even if there did not exist complete diversity at the time of removal to federal court, so long as complete diversity exists at the time the district court enters judgment.

** Petitioners, the husband and two children of a woman who died of toxic shock syndrome, received a jury award of $1,525,000 actual damages and $10 million punitive damages in a tort suit based on… Held: Petitioners' punitive damages were not received ''on account of'' personal injuries; hence the gross-income-exclusion provision does not apply and the damages are taxable. Pp. ___-___.

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996), was a Supreme Court of the United States case regarding a controversy over the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner, M.L.B., argued that the Mississippi Chancery Courts could not terminate her parental rights on the basis that she was unable to pay the court fees. M.L.B. had been sued by S.L.J. to terminate M.L.B.'s parental rights and gain the ability to adopt the children. The judge declared in favor of S.L.J. under the premise that the decree was fair, as it was based on the fulfilling of the burden of proof by the father and his second wife with "clear and convincing evidence." Despite the statement, the Chancery Court never elaborated on the evidence or clearly explained why M.L.B.'s parental rights had been dismissed. When M.L.B.

Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), discussed the limitation on admitting relevant evidence set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Under this rule, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded if the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or considerations of undue delay, wasting time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. In this case, Old Chief offered to stipulate to the fact of a prior conviction, which was an element of the crime with which he was charged. The prosecution resisted this stipulation, arguing that it had the right to present its case in any manner it chose.

* In 1990, petitioner Walters was fired by respondent Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., soon after she filed an employment discrimination charge against it under Title VII of the Civil… Held: The u ltimate touchstone under § 2000e(b) is whether an employer has employment relationships with 15 or more individuals for each working day in 20 or more weeks during the year in question. Pp. ___-___.

* After City Federal Savings Bank, a federally chartered, federally insured savings association, went into receivership, the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC), which has since been replaced as… Held: State law sets the standard of conduct for officers and directors of federally insured savings institutions as long as the state standard (such as simple negligence) is stricter than that of § 1821(k).

Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a provision which escheats property to tribe upon owner's death any fractional interest in allotment which constitutes less than two percent of the allotment and has not produced $100 in income over the past five years, unless it is devised or descends to owner of another fractional interest in the allotment, works an unconstitutional taking.

* While working for petitioner Ingalls as a shipfitter, Jefferson Yates was exposed to asbestos. Held: 1.Before an injured worker's death, the worker's spouse is not a "person entitled to compensation'' for death benefits within §33(g)'s meaning, and does not forfeit the right to collect death benefits under the Act for failure to obtain the worker's employer's approval of settlements entered into before the worker's death.

* Ohio imposes general sales and use taxes on natural gas purchases from all sellers, whether in-state or out-of-state, that do not meet its statutory definition of a "natural gas company.'' Ohio's… Held: 1.GMC has standing to raise a Commerce Clause challenge. Cognizable injury from unconstitutional discrimination against interstate commerce does not stop at members of the class against whom a State ultimately discriminates.

* California requires a public works project contractor to pay its workers the prevailing wage in the project's locale, but allows payment of a lower wage to participants in a… Held: California's prevailing wage law does not "relate to'' employee benefit plans, and thus is not pre-empted by ERISA. Pp. ___-___ . (a) A state law "relate[s] to'' a covered employee benefit plan for §514(a) purposes if it (1) has a "connection with'' or (2) "reference to'' such a plan.

Robinson v. Shell Oil Company, 519 U.S. 337 (1997), is US labor law case in the United States Supreme Court in which the Court unanimously held that under federal law, U.S. employers must not engage in workplace discrimination such as writing bad job references, or otherwise retaliating against former employees as a punishment for filing job discrimination complaints.

** After the taxpayer in each of these cases paid the Internal Revenue Service money he did not owe, he (or his representative) submitted an administrative refund claim several years… Held: Congress did not intend the "equitable tolling'' doctrine to apply to §6511's time (and related amount) limitations for filing tax refund claims. The taxpayers misplace their reliance on Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 94-96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 456-458, 112 L.Ed.2d 435.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. The question before the court was whether the First Amendment was violated by placing an injunction on protesters outside abortion clinics. The court ruled in a 6–3 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving the clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that officers could order passengers out a car during a traffic stop, extending Pennsylvania v. Mimms.

* Respondent Doe, a New York citizen, sued the University of California and others, alleging, inter alia, that the University had agreed to employ him at a laboratory it operates pursuant to a… Held: The fact that the Federal Government has agreed to indemnify a state instrumentality against litigation costs, including adverse judgments, does not divest the state agency of Eleventh Amendment immunity.

* Beginning in 1983 the Florida Legislature enacted a series of statutes authorizing the award of early release credits to prison inmates when the state prison population exceeded predetermined… Held: The 1992 statute canceling provisional release credits violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. Pp. ___-___.

Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), is a United States Supreme Court case that concerns the standard that the Court should apply when it reviews an executive department's interpretation of regulations established under federal legislation. The specific issue was whether sergeants and lieutenants in the St. Louis Police Department should be paid for working overtime. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 established the overtime pay requirement, and the US Department of Labor issued regulations to determine if an employee was covered by the overtime requirement. The Court held that it should defer to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the regulations.

Held: that an option is not itself a transaction “in” foreign currency, but rather is just a contract right to engage in such a transaction at a future date. Brief for CFTC 30-31; 58 F. 3d, at 53 .