Volume 563 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 563 of the United States Reports:

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano, 563 U.S. 27 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a plaintiff can state a claim for securities fraud under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §78j(b), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2010), based on a pharmaceutical company's failure to disclose reports of adverse events associated with a product if the reports do not find statistically significant evidence that the adverse effects may be caused by the use of the product.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a prosecutor's office can be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.

Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 563 U.S. 110 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that medical providers, as third-party beneficiaries, may not sue drug manufacturers for selling drugs at prices higher than the discounted price required by Medicaid.

Certiorari dismissed. Reported below: 14 N. Y. 3d 382, 900 N. E. 2d 708. Kristina Schwarz argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Steven Banks, Andrew C. Fine, Law rence T. Hausman, and Richard Joselson. Caitlin J. Halligan argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., Hilary Hassler, Alan B. Gadlin, Eleanor J. Ostrow, and Allen J. Vickey.

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving taxpayer standing under Article Three of the United States Constitution.

Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, is a 2011 United States Supreme Court case concerning evidentiary development in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Oral arguments in the case took place on November 9, 2010, and the Supreme Court issued its decision on April 4, 2011. The Supreme Court held 5–4 that only evidence originally presented before the state court in which the claim was originally adjudicated on the merits could be presented when raising a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), and that evidence from a federal habeas court could not be presented in such proceedings. It also held that convicted murderer Scott Pinholster, the respondent in the case, was not entitled to the habeas relief he had been granted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, 563 U.S. 247 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Ex parte Young allows a federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by another agency of the same state.

Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and sovereign immunity. The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that the petitioner could not sue Texas state officials in their official capacity for damages under the RLUIPA, affirming a lower court ruling. The majority reasoned that the officials could not be sued under the RLUIPA because it was passed under the United States Congress’s Spending Power.

United States v. Tohono Oʼodham Nation, 563 U.S. 307 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a plaintiff cannot bring a suit in the Court of Federal Claims when they have another active suit based on substantially the same operative facts, regardless of any difference in the requested relief.

AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), is a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court. On April 27, 2011, the Court ruled, by a 5–4 margin, that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts state laws that prohibit contracts from disallowing class-wide arbitration, such as the law previously upheld by the California Supreme Court in the case of Discover Bank v. Superior Court. As a result, businesses that include arbitration agreements with class action waivers can require consumers to bring claims only in individual arbitrations, rather than in court as part of a class action.

Article V(A) of the Yellowstone River Compact (Compact) ratified by Montana, Wyoming, and North Dakota provides: “Appropriative rights to… Held: Because Article V(A) of the Compact incorporates the ordinary doc trine of appropriation without significant qualification, and because in Wyoming and Montana that doctrine allows appropriators to improve their irrigation systems, even to the detriment of downstream appropri ators, Montana’s increased-efficiency allegation fails to…

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal agency's written response to a Freedom of Information Act request for records constitutes a "report" within the meaning of the False Claims Act's public disclosure bar.

CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal district court did not have authority under Section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA to reform CIGNA's pension plan, but Section 502(a)(3) did give the court that authority.

Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011), was a decision by the US Supreme Court, which held that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

General Dynamics Corp. v. United States (consolidated with The Boeing Co. v. United States), 563 U.S. 478 (2011), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the State Secrets Privilege prevented the plaintiff from using the evidence it needed to protect itself from an expensive judgement.

Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a court-mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. Justice Kennedy filed the majority opinion of the 5 to 4 decision, affirming a decision by a three judge panel of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Northern Districts of California which had ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years. Justice Scalia filed a dissent that was joined by Justice Thomas. A separate dissent was filed by Justice Alito that was joined by Chief Justice Roberts.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.

United States v. Tinklenberg, 563 U.S. 647 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, the speedy trial clock stops whenever a pretrial motion is filed, regardless of whether the trial process is actually delayed by the motion or expected to be delayed.

Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when someone is charged of a killing under the federal witness-tampering statute, the state must prove a violation by showing there was a reasonable likelihood that a relevant communication would have been made to a federal officer.

Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the general case the Court may review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of government officials who have won final judgment on qualified immunity grounds but could not for this case due to details specific to it.

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his involvement in the detention of a U.S. citizen in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case. The case considered whether a party, in order to "actively [induce] infringement of a patent" under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), must know that the induced act constitutes patent infringement, or whether deliberate indifference to the existence of a patent can be considered a form of actual knowledge.

Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. 776 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act. The judges affirmed the common understanding of U.S. constitutional law that inventors originally own inventions they make, and contractual obligations to assign those rights to third parties are secondary.

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification." Their decision cleared the way for class action to proceed against Halliburton over its alleged misrepresentation of facts material to the value of its stock price.

McNeill v. United States, 563 U.S. 816 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that, regarding whether an offense under State law is a serious drug offense for purposes of federal sentencing, courts must consult the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense at the time of conviction.

Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that reasonable fees may be granted to the defendant in a suit that involves both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, but only for costs resulting from the frivolous claims.