Volume 559 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 559 of the United States Reports:

275 Va. 283, 657 S. E. 2d 113, vacated and remanded. Richard D. Friedman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Joseph D. King, Thomas B. Shuttleworth, and Charles B. Lustig. Stephen R. McCullough, State Solicitor General of Vir ginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William C. Mims, Attorney General, Martin L. Kent, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Eugene Murphy, Sen ior Assistant Attorney General, Alice T.

Held: was not whether a certain quantum of injury was sustained, but rather “whether force was ap plied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore disci 4 WILKINS v. GADDY

Decided February 22, 2010 During voirdireat respondent’s murder trial, one Texas state judge pre- sided over the questioning of prospective jurors, while another presided when peremptory challenges were exercised. As relevant here, the second judge found that respondent made out a prima facie case that the prosecution’s strike of African-American juror Owens violated Batsonv. Kentucky, 476 U.

Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the language requirements for Miranda warnings. In the case, a suspect was advised of his right to consult with an attorney before questioning, as well as his right to consult with an attorney at any time during questioning. However, he was not advised of his right to the physical presence of an attorney during questioning.

Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a corporation's principal place of business is its "nerve center": the state in which its high-level executives work and direct the corporation. Diversity jurisdiction, described in the Judiciary Act of 1789, allows federal courts to hear cases on state law if the parties are "citizens" of different states. Since 1958, a corporation's citizenship is determined based on its principal place of business and where it is incorporated. In 2007, two employees of The Hertz Corporation who lived in California sued the company over unpaid overtime, a violation of California state law.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police may re-open questioning of a suspect who has asked for counsel (thereby under Edwards v. Arizona ending questioning) if there has been a 14-day or more break in Miranda custody. The ruling distinguished Edwards, which had not specified a limit.

Held: This case is remanded for the Court of Appeals to determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the change in the underlying facts, which may affect the legal issues presented. 555 F. 3d 1022, vacated and remanded.

Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for the government to seek an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act for a criminal defendant who has previously been convicted of a violent felony, the previous conviction must be for a crime that required the state to prove the use of violent force as an element of the offense. In this case, the previous conviction was for battery in a jurisdiction where the state needed to prove that a defendant "[a]ctually and intentionally touch[ed]" another person. The court held that this did not satisfy the ACCA's "violent felony" standard because this did not require the state to prove that the defendant used any violent force.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Mac's Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co., 559 U.S. 175 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a franchisee cannot recover for constructive termination under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) if the franchisor’s allegedly wrongful conduct did not compel the franchisee to abandon its franchise. Additionally, the court held that a franchisee who signs and operates under a renewal agreement with a franchisor may not maintain a constructive nonrenewal claim under the PMPA.

Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day limit for bringing a case to trial. Such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under the act's subsection (h)(7).

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States, 559 U.S. 229 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons are debt relief agencies under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, although a Bankruptcy Court is not supposed to discharge a person's student loan debt without finding they meet an "undue hardship" requirement, the Bankruptcy Court may enter a binding order without doing so.

Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state "administrative" disclosures trigger the public disclosure bar within the False Claims Act. That bar deprives courts of jurisdiction to hear qui tam suits based on misrepresentations in public disclosures by the government. This decision was abrogated by the Affordable Care Act, which explicitly limited this immunity to federal disclosures only.

Berghuis v. Smith, 559 U.S. 314 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that no opinion of the Supreme Court specifies the method or test courts must use to measure racial underrepresentation in a jury pool.The Court ruled that Michigan's jury selection system, which resulted in low representation of African Americans in Kent County, did not violate the Sixth Amendment, as the statistical disparity did not satisfy the Duren v. Missouri test for underrepresentation.[1]

Jones v. Harris Associates L.P., 559 U.S. 335 (2010), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which investors claimed that the fees they paid to an investment advisor were too steep, violating the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that criminal defense attorneys must advise noncitizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. The case extended the Supreme Court's prior decisions on criminal defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel to immigration consequences.

Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure must be applied by a federal district court situated in a state with competing rules if the Rule is "arguably procedural."

Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 48 to criminalize the commercial creation, sale, or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty. Held: Section 48 is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment. Pp. 468–482. (a) Depictions of animal cruelty are not, as a class, categorically un protected by the First Amendment.

Conkright v. Frommert, 559 U.S. 506 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the administrator of an ERISA plan is entitled to deference in matters of interpretation, even when the administrator had previously adopted a different interpretation that a court found erroneous.

Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal court can award larger-than-usual attorney's fees for excellent performance in a civil rights case, but only in extraordinary circumstances.

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a debt collector's ignorance of the law does not qualify as a good-faith mistake for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's bona fide error defense.

Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the time for a plaintiff to file a federal securities fraud lawsuit begins to run when the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the defendant knew that the defendant's statement was false.

Petitioner shipping companies serve much of the world market for parcel tankers—seagoing vessels with compartments that are separately char tered to customers, such as respondent (AnimalFeeds), who… Held: Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to au thorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. Pp. 671–687.

Salazar v. Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the legality of the Mojave Memorial Cross, a Latin cross which was placed atop a prominent rock outcropping by the Veterans of Foreign Wars foundation in 1934 to honor war dead. The location is known as "Sunrise Rock" in the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County in southeastern California. The Supreme Court ruled that the cross may stay, but also sent the case back to a lower court, making the issue currently unresolved.

Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the trial court's decision in this case was not unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. A federal habeas court must be deferential to the state trial court, including its decision about whether a jury was deadlocked.

Hui v. Castaneda, 559 U.S. 799 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the immunity provided by the Federal Tort Claims Act precludes Bivens actions against individual PHS officers or employees for harms arising out of constitutional violations committed while acting within the scope of their office or employment. The plaintiff can only sue the federal government, not the employees.