Volume 528 — United States Reports

This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 528 of the United States Reports:

Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32 (1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a California statute that allowed law enforcement agencies to disclose the addresses of arrestees and crime victims only to persons who intended to use the addresses for “for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator.” United Reporting Publishing Corp., which was in the business of selling arrestees’ addresses to private businesses for a profit, argued that such a law unconstitutionally restricted commercial speech and was therefore unconstitutional.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that scheduling of a trial date outside the 180-day period of Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) by a defendant's counsel waived the defendant's right to dismissal on the ground that the trial did not occur within that period. The court clarified that decisions about scheduling are among those entrusted to counsel and do not require a defendant's personal consent. The trial court declared that the defense counsel's agreement to hold the trial after that period waivered Hill's IAD rights.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.

Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) against a Tenth Amendment challenge.

Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial purposes.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.

The Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. § 1422 provides, inter alia, that "[i]f no [slate of] candidates [for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Guam] receive[s] a majority of the votes cast in any… Held: The Guam Organic Act does not require a runoff election when a candidate slate has received a majority of the votes cast for Governor and Lieutenant Governor of the Territory, but not a majority of the number of ballots cast in the simultaneous general election.

An attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal may conclude that an appeal would be frivolous and request that the appellate court allow him to withdraw or that the court dispose… Held: The Anders procedure is only one method of satisfying the Constitution's requirements for indigent criminal appeals; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant's right to appellate counsel. Pp. 6-13.

Held: did not violate the Sixth Amendment, because Gilbert was removed and the impartiality of the jury eventually seated was not challenged. Id., at 657 . But the Court of Appeals further concluded that the District Court’s mistake resulted in a violation of Martinez-Salazar’s Fifth Amendment due process rights.

Bossier Parish, Louisiana, a jurisdiction covered by §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, is thereby prohibited from enacting any change in a "voting qualification[,] prerequisite[,] standard,… Held: The Court rejects the Board's contention that these cases are mooted by the fact that the 1992 plan will never again be used because the next scheduled election will occur in 2002, when the Board will have a new plan in place based upon data from the 2000 census.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.

Two remittances were made to the Internal Revenue Service toward petitioner Baral's income tax liability for the 1988 tax year: a withholding of $4,104 from Baral's wages throughout 1988 by his… Held: Remittances of estimated income tax and withholding tax are "paid" on the due date of a calendar year taxpayer's income tax return.

Held: *457 however, that there are also cases in which a court of appeals may appropriately instruct the district court to enter judgment as a matter of law against the jury-verdict winner. Id., at 326 .

A State may tax a proportionate share of the "unitary" income of a nondomiciliary corporation that carries out a particular business both inside and… Held: Because California's interest deduction offset provision is not a reasonable allocation of expense deductions to the income that the expense generates, it constitutes impermissible taxation of income outside the State's jurisdictional reach in violation of the Federal Constitution's Due Process and Commerce Clauses.

Respondent pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. At his sentencing, the trial judge advised him that he had 60 days to file an appeal. Held: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, provides the proper framework for evaluating a claim that counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a notice of appeal.

Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the state could not restrict eligibility to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to persons of Native Hawaiian descent.

Petitioner Rotella was admitted to a private psychiatric facility in 1985 and discharged in 1986. Held: The "injury and pattern discovery rule" invoked by Rotella does not govern the start of the limitations period for civil RICO claims. Pp. 3 11. (a) In Malley-Duff, this Court based its choice of a uniform 4-year statute of limitations period for civil RICO on a Clayton Act analogy, but did not decide when the period began to run.