Volume 522 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 522 of the United States Reports:

State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that vertical maximum price fixing was not inherently unlawful, thereby overruling a previous Supreme Court decision, Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145 (1968). However, the Court concluded that "[i]n overruling Albrecht, the Court does not hold that all vertical maximum price fixing is per se lawful, but simply that it should be evaluated under the rule of reason, which can effectively identify those situations in which it amounts to anticompetitive conduct."

* James and Laurenda Jackson owned and operated Education America, Inc., a for-profit consulting and management firm for technical and vocational… Held: Specific intent to injure or defraud someone, whether the United States or another, is not an element of the misapplication of funds proscribed by §1097(a). The text of §1097(a) does not include an "intent to defraud'' requirement, and this court ordinarily resists reading words into a statute that do not appear on its face.

Held: preelearanee cannot occur until the particular change has been submitted to the Attorney General and he has been afforded an opportunity to assess its purpose and its effect on minority voting in that jurisdiction.” Brief for Appellees in City of Rome v. United States, O. T. 1979, No. 78-1840, pp. 69-70 (citation omitted).

* This federal prosecution arose from a scheme in which a Texas county sheriff accepted money, and his deputy, petitioner Salinas, accepted two watches and a truck, in exchange for permitting women… Held: 1.Section 666(a)(1)(B) does not require the Government to prove the bribe in question had a demonstrated effect upon federal funds.

* The Elections Clause of the Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, see Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730, 94 S.Ct.… Held: Louisiana's statute conflicts with federal law to the extent that it is applied to select a congressional candidate in October. Pp. ___-___. (a) The issue here is a narrow one turning entirely on the meaning of the state and federal statutes.

* Petitioners commenced this action in Alabama state court to recover damages for the death of their decedent, Alberta Jefferson, an African-American woman who perished in a fire at her home in… Held: Because the Alabama Supreme Court has not yet rendered a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review that court's decision on petitioners' §1983 claims. Pp. ___-___.

* In upholding the District Court's refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus vacating petitioner Trest's Louisiana prison sentence, the Fifth Circuit stated its… Held: A court of appeals is not "required'' to raise the issue of procedural default sua sponte. Pp . ___-___ . (a) In the habeas context, procedural default is normally a "defense'' that the State is "obligated to raise'' and "preserv[e]'' if it is not to "lose the right to assert the defense thereafter.'' Gray v.

Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the government may levy a remedial civil penalty after a criminal punishment without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition on multiple punishments. Penalty, here, is distinct from punishment. The Double Jeopardy Clause prevents multiple punishments; i.e., the clause would be activated if the penalty was actually punishment. A penalty might actually be punishment if it was intended to be punishment or if it was punishment in effect, based on the text of the statute rather than what occurred in a particular case.

* Following customary practice, petitioner prosecuting attorney commenced criminal proceedings by filing three documents in Washington state court: (1) an unsworn information charging respondent… Held: Section 1983 may create a damages remedy against a prosecutor for making false statements of fact in an affidavit supporting an application for an arrest warrant, since such conduct is not protected by the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity. Pp. ___-___. (a) Imbler v.

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), was a Supreme Court of the United States case between Robert Joiner and General Electric Co. that concerned whether the abuse of discretion standard is the correct standard an appellate court should apply in reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony. The case is notable for helping articulate the Daubert standard.

* Following the Chicago Landmarks Commission's preliminary determination that two of respondent ICS's buildings qualified for protection under the city's Landmarks Ordinance, the city enacted a… Held: A case containing claims that local administrative action violates federal law, but also containing state law claims for on-the-record review of the administrative findings, can be removed to federal district court. P. ___.

* Under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA or Act), employers who withdraw from underfunded multiemployer pension plans must ordinarily pay "withdrawal liability.'' 29… Held: 1.The MPPAA's six-year statute of limitations on a pension fund's action to collect unpaid withdrawal liability does not begin to run until the employer fails to make a payment on the schedule set by the fund.

* Diane Beasley purchased a new car and gave petitioner, Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., a promissory note for the purchase price,… Held: A transfer of a security interest is "perfected'' under §547(c)(3)(B) on the date that the secured party has completed the steps necessary to perfect its interest, so that a creditor may invoke the enabling loan exception only by satisfying state law perfection requirements within the 20-day period provided by the federal statute.

* For fifteen of the years Ronald Elwell worked for respondent General Motors Corporation (GM), he was assigned to a group that studied the performance of GM vehicles. Held: Elwell may testify in the Missouri action without offense to the national full faith and credit command. Pp. ___-___.

* Petitioner was charged with the knowing possession of an unregistered and unserialized firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. §5861(d) and (i) as a result of the discovery of a silencer in his truck. Held: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. Reported below: 94 F.3d 1519 (C.A.11 1996).

* Respondents, federal employees subject to adverse actions by their agencies, each made false statements to agency investigators with respect to the misconduct with which they were charged. Held: Neither the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause nor the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §1101 et seq., precludes a federal agency from sanctioning an employee for making false statements to the agency regarding his alleged employment-related misconduct.

* Following petitioner Buchanan's conviction of the capital murders of his father, stepmother, and two brothers, the prosecutor sought the death penalty based on Virginia's aggravating factor that… Held: The absence of instructions on the concept of mitigation and on particular statutorily defined mitigating factors did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

* New York Tax Law §631(b)(6) effectively denies only nonresident taxpayers a state income tax deduction for alimony paid. Held: In the absence of a substantial reason for the difference in treatment of New York nonresidents, §631(b)(6) violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by denying only nonresidents an income tax deduction for alimony payments. Pp. ___-___.

Held: in accordance with our decision in South Dakota v. Bourland, 508 U. S. 679, 692 (1993), that the Tribe itself could not assert regulatory jurisdiction over the non-Indian activity on fee lands.

* Mack Trucks, Inc., sold its Allentown, Pennsylvania, branch to petitioner Allentown Mack Sales, Inc. Allentown thereafter operated as an independent dealership, employing 32 of the… Held: inter alia, that because Allentown lacked an "objective reasonable doubt'' about Local 724's majority status, the poll violated §§8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) of the Act. The Board agreed and ordered petitioner to recognize and bargain with the union. The Court of Appeals enforced the order.

Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the right of those being questioned by law enforcement officials to deny wrongdoing falsely.

* In consideration for receipt of severance pay under an employment termination agreement, petitioner Oubre signed a release of all claims against her employer, respondent Entergy Operations, Inc. In… Held: As the release did not comply with the OWBPA's requirements, it cannot bar Oubre's ADEA claim.

Held: " McKesson is distinguishable because that holding was expressly predicated upon the fact that the taxpayer had no meaningful predeprivation remedy.'' 689 So.2d 361, 363 (1997). The court interpreted Florida law to permit prepayment tax challenges by filing an action and paying the contested amount into the court registry, posting a bond, or obtaining a court order approving an alternative arrangement.

* Under the Medicare Act and its implementing regulations, a hospital (a provider) may obtain reimbursement for "allowable cost[s]'' (including the costs of certain graduate medical education (GME)… Held: 1.The Secretary's reaudit rule is not impermissibly retroactive.

* After a partnership mortgaged its interest in the Louisiana equivalent of a leasehold estate to respondent Regions Bank of Louisiana (Bank), the partnership granted a second mortgage to… Held: Claim preclusion by reason of a prior federal judgment is a defensive plea that provides no basis for removal. Such a defense is properly made in the state proceedings, and the state courts' disposition of it is subject to this Court's ultimate review. Pp. ___-___.

National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479 (1998), is a 1998 legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that banks had prudential standing to challenge regulations that permitted credit unions to enroll unaffiliated members.

Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 522 U.S. 520 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case. The local tribal council in Venetie, Alaska, wanted to collect tax from non-tribal members doing business on tribal lands. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had ruled in the tribe's favor, saying they occupied Indian Country.