Volume 534 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 534 of the United States Reports:

TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the discovery rule (that a federal statute of limitations begins to run when a party knows or has reason to know that she was injured) does not apply to the two-year statute of limitations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court found that implied damages actions first recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents should not be extended to allow recovery against a private corporation operating a halfway house under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.

Chickasaw Nation v. United States, 534 U.S. 84 (2001), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Indian tribes were liable for taxes on gambling operations under 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.

United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on December 10, 2001. The court held that the police search of a probationer supported by reasonable suspicion and pursuant to a probation condition satisfied the requirements under the Fourth Amendment.

J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering (sexually reproducing) plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the exclusive ways to protect these plants are under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321, and the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.

While petitioner was in prison on federal drug charges, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an administrative process to forfeit cash that officers seized when they executed a search… Held: The FBI's notice of the cash forfeiture satisfied due process. The Fifth Amendment 's Due Process Clause entitles individuals whose property interests are at stake to "notice and an opportunity to be heard." United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 , 48.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It reversed the decision by the Court of Appeals to grant a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that had qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability.

When respondent Janette Knudson was injured in a car accident, the health plan (Plan) of petitioner Earth Systems, Inc., the employer of Janette's then-husband, respondent Eric Knudson, covered… Held: Because petitioners are seeking legal relief the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money §502(a)(3) does not authorize this action. Pp. 4-17.

While Rig 52, respondent's oil and gas exploration barge, was drilling a well in Louisiana's territorial waters, an explosion on board killed or injured several workers. Held: Because the Guard has neither affirmatively regulated the working conditions at issue, nor asserted comprehensive regulatory jurisdiction over working conditions on uninspected vessels, it has not exercised its authority under §4(b)(1).

After convicting petitioner Kelly of murder and related crimes, a South Carolina jury was asked to determine whether any aggravating factors had been shown and, if so, to recommend a sentence of… Held: Kelly was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reaffirmed the proposition that the Fourth Amendment required courts to analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances instead of examining the plausibility of each reason an officer gives for stopping a motorist individually.

Respondents employees must each sign an agreement requiring employment disputes to be settled by binding arbitration. After Eric Baker suffered a seizure and was fired by respondent, he filed a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that his discharge violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

Respondent Chicago Park District adopted an ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events in public parks. Held: 1.A content-neutral permit scheme regulating uses (including speech uses) of a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51.

The Pole Attachments Act requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to set reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for certain attachments… Held: 1.The Act covers attachments that provide high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television. Pp. 411. (a)This issue is resolved by the Acts plain text. No one disputes that a cable attached by a cable television company to provide only cable television service is an attachment by a cable television system.

Petitioner Lee was tried for first-degree murder and a related crime in state court. Held: The Missouri Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review. Pp.1225.

Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (SVPA) as consistent with substantive due process. The Court clarified that its earlier holding in Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) did not set forth a requirement of total or complete lack of control, but it noted that the US Constitution does not permit commitment of a sex offender without some lack-of-control determination.

Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo, 534 U.S. 426 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held in favor of Owasso Independent School District that students scoring each other's tests and calling out the grades do not violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA). Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion in which he agreed with the ruling but took issue with parts of Kennedy's opinion. The case originated in the District Court of and for Tulsa County, Oklahoma, where the court ruled in Owasso's favor. Falvo appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, where they overturned the district judge's decision and ruled in favor of Falvo.

In developing standards for determining Medicaid eligibility, participating States must "tak[e] into account only such income and resources as are, as determined in accordance with standards… Held: unambiguously mandates the resources-first method. Held: The income-first method qualifies as a permissible interpretation of the MCCA. Pp. 13-21. (a) Neither §1396r-5(e)(2)(C)'s text nor the MCCA's structure forbids Wisconsin's approach.

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court settled an intercircuit conflict regarding civil procedure for prisoners seeking redress. The court held that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet §1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action.

1. The assertion of an Eleventh Amendment defense does not vitiate or destroy a federal district court's original jurisdiction over claims involving federal questions or the court's mandatory, supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (1994). 2.