Volume 549 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

Ayers v. Belmontes, 549 U.S. 7 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a catch-all jury instruction allowing consideration of "any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime" permits the jury to consider a defendant's post-crime evidence and is consistent with the constitutional right to present mitigating evidence in death-penalty sentencing.

Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47 (2006), held that an "aggravated felony" includes only conduct punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act, regardless of whether state law classifies such conduct as a felony or a misdemeanor. Under federal law, there are two main consequences of having a prior conviction for an "aggravated felony." One is that, if the convicted person is an alien, he will be deported. The other is that, with respect to certain federal crimes, a prior conviction for an aggravated felony provides a sentencing enhancement. In this case, Lopez had been convicted of conduct that was a felony under South Dakota law but was a misdemeanor under federal law. Accordingly, the U.S.

Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the standard for when a federal court can grant habeas corpus relief to overturn a criminal conviction based on the state court's misapplication of established federal law. At issue was whether a criminal defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when relatives of the alleged victim were permitted to sit in the courtroom as spectators during the trial, wearing buttons that displayed the victim's image. The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it upheld the conviction.

BP America Production Co. v. Burton, 549 U.S. 84 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a statute of limitations on government actions for contract claims applies to actions by a federal administrative agency to recover royalties on federal oil and gas leases. After two members recused themselves, the court ruled unanimously that it does not apply, in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.

Held: the Government was required to specify in the indictment which particular overt act it would be relying on at trial. Cf. Russell v. United States, 369 U. S. 749 (1962).

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech. One of the central issues was whether a licensee retained the right to challenge a licensed patent, or whether this right was forfeited upon signing of the license agreement. The case related indirectly to past debate over whether the US should change to a first to file patent system - in 2011, President Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which shifted the United States to a first-inventor-to-file patent system.

Petitioner Burton was initially convicted of rape, robbery, and burglary and sentenced to prison in 1994, but the state trial court entered amended judgments and sentences… Held: Because Burton’s 2002 petition was a “second or successive” peti tion, his failure to obtain authorization from the Ninth Circuit deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to hear his claims. When Burton filed each of his petitions, he was being held in custody pursuant to the same 1998 judgment.

Respondent Sorrell was injured while working for the petitioner railroad (Norfolk), and sought damages for his injuries in Missouri state court under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA),… Held: Norfolk’s attempt to expand the question presented to encompass what the FELA causation standard should be, not simply whether the standard should be the same for railroad negligence and employee con tributory negligence, is rejected.

Respondent, a permanent resident alien, was convicted of violating Cal. Veh. Held: The term “theft offense” in 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) includes the crime of “aiding and abetting” a theft offense. Pp. 189–194.

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. The issues concerned obligations of inmate litigants before one could file a civil rights action. The majority opinion was by Chief Justice Roberts and the court decided the case unanimously.

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) generally prevents appeals of decisions to remand removed cases back to state court, that statute does not apply to cases removed under the Westfall Act. Thus, such a removal order can be appealed immediately.

Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the sentencing standard set forward in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) applies to California's determinate sentencing law.

Weyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, 549 U.S. 312 (2007), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the Court's decision in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. did not apply in predatory purchasing cases.

Lawrence v. Florida, 549 U.S. 327 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statute of limitations for seeking federal habeas relief from a state decision is not tolled while a certiorari petition is pending with the United States Supreme Court because it is tolled only during review by state courts.

Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346 (2007), 556 U.S. 178 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits punitive damages, and ordered a lower court to reconsider its damages awards on that basis.

Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 549 U.S. 365 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case about bad faith in bankruptcy.

Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the statute of limitations upon a §1983 claim seeking damages for a false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, where the arrest is followed by criminal proceedings, begins to run at the time the claimant becomes detained pursuant to legal process and not when the charges based on the arrest are dropped.

Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about the application of the Confrontation Clause and whether Crawford v. Washington (2006) applied retroactively. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that Crawford did not apply retroactively.

Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, 549 U.S. 422 (2007), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the court held a United States district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case.

Held: “this general right does not entitle a private citizen to institute [a suit] in the federal courts.” Id., at 129-130 . Similarly, in Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937) (

After respondent (PG&E) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, petitioner (Travelers), which had previously issued a surety bond to guarantee PG&E’s payment of state… Held: Federal bankruptcy law does not disallow contract-based claims for attorney’s fees based solely on the fact that the fees were incurred liti gating bankruptcy law issues. Because the Fobian rule finds no sup port in federal bankruptcy law, the Ninth Circuit erred in disallowing Travelers’ claim. Pp. 448–454.

While employed as an engineer at a nuclear weapons plant run by peti tioner Rockwell under a Government contract, respondent Stone pre dicted that Rockwell’s system for creating solid “pondcrete”… Held: Section 3730(e)(4)’s original-source requirement is jurisdictional. Thus, regardless of whether Rockwell conceded Stone’s original-source status, this Court must decide whether Stone meets this jurisdictional requirement. Pp. 467–470. 2.

Limtiaco v. Camacho (2007), 549 U.S. 483, is a case of the United States Supreme Court which handled a complex taxation dispute between two Guamanian politicians—Douglas B. Moylan, Guam's first elected Attorney General, and Felix P. Camacho, then-Governor of Guam—involving the proper interpretation of the Guam Organic Act. Guam, an unincorporated territory of the United States, is governed by this Organic Act, a United States federal law passed in 1950; much case law in the territory is based on its interpretation. The case focused on a seemingly narrow issue: whether for the purposes of the debt ceiling established in § 11 of the Guam Organic Act—ten percent of the value of real property in Guam—the real (market) value or tax (assessed) value was to be used to calculate the ceiling.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context. It involved the Environmental Defense Fund and Duke Energy. In a unanimous decision, the court held in favor of the plaintiff's (Environmental Defense) argument.