Volume 566 — United States Reports

Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case that created a small exception to a previous ruling, Coleman v. Thompson. Normally, if a prisoner misses a deadline to file an appeal under state law, federal courts cannot review their case—even if their lawyer made a mistake. Coleman had ruled that ineffective assistance of counsel during appeals does not excuse this kind of procedural default.

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland, 566 U.S. 30 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that suits under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993's self-care provision are barred by sovereign immunity. The act allows an employee to take up to 12 weeks off of work to deal with their own serious health condition. However, in this case, a person could not sue the government for an alleged violation of this on gender-discrimination grounds because nobody can sue the government for a violation of that part of the law at all.

Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held that claims directed to a method of giving a drug to a patient, measuring metabolites of that drug, and with a known threshold for efficacy in mind, deciding whether to increase or decrease the dosage of the drug, were not patent-eligible subject matter.

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an employee is "newly awarded compensation" when they first become disabled and thereby become statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on their behalf.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. 120 (2012), also known as Sackett I (to distinguish it from the 2023 case), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court ruled that because the Environmental Protection Agency's orders constitute "final agency action" under the Administrative Procedure Act, federal courts may hear appeals from its orders.

Missouri v. Galin E. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that attorneys of criminal defendants have the duty to communicate plea bargains offered to the accused.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy. Anthony Cooper was charged by the State of Michigan with assault with intent to murder and three other offenses.

Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a dispute about passport regulation was not a political question and thus resolvable by the US court system. Specifically, Zivotofsky's parents sought to have his passport read "Jerusalem, Israel", rather than "Jerusalem", as his place of birth. The State Department had rejected that request under a longstanding policy that took no stance on the legal status of Jerusalem. Zivotofsky's parents then sued, citing a Congressional law that ordered the Secretary of State to list people born in Jerusalem as born in Israel. In Zivotofsky v.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 566 U.S. 221 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court decision regarding the limitation period for insider trading claims. The court ruled in an 8-0 unanimous opinion that the limitation period was subject to traditional equitable tolling. Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case.

Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal district court has discretion to order that a defendant's federal sentence run consecutively to an anticipated state sentence that has not yet been imposed.

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that officials may strip-search people who have been arrested for any crime before admitting the people to jail, even if there is no reason to suspect that the person is carrying contraband.

Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a witness in a grand-jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under Section 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial.

Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a private contractor temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983.

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 566 U.S. 399 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a generic manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand's patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.

Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. 431 (2012), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that there are no limitations on a plaintiff's ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding other than those in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority, 566 U.S. 449 (2012) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, applies exclusively to natural persons and does not impose liability against any organizational entity.

Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court abuses its discretion if it raises a timeliness objection on its own after the State deliberately waived a statute of limitations defense.

United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 566 U.S. 478 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that overstating the value of property sold in order to understate the profit made from the sale does not trigger the extended statute of limitations for the IRS to challenge the seller's tax forms.

Hall v. United States, 566 U.S. 506 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal income tax liability resulting from a post-petition farm sale is not "incurred by the estate" under §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in a Chapter 12 bankruptcy plan.

Astrue v. Capato, 566 U.S. 541 (2012), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that children conceived after a parent's death are not entitled to Social Security Survivors benefits if the laws in the state that the parent's will was signed in forbid it. The case was a unanimous decision.

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a person who wins their case and is awarded legal costs cannot be awarded costs for document translation under the Court Interpreters Act. The court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of "interpreter" is someone who translates orally from one language to another, so the category "compensation of interpreters" in the Court Interpreters Act does not include the cost of document translation.

Holder v. Gutierrez (consolidated with Holder v. Sawyers), 566 U.S. 583 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Board of Immigration Appeals's position that a non-citizen seeking cancellation of a deportation order must individually satisfy lawful permanent resident status requirements rather than relying on a parent's years of that status is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

Blueford v. Arkansas, 566 U.S. 599 (2012), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified the limits of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial of counts that a jury had previously unanimously voted to acquit on, when a mistrial is declared after the jury deadlocked on a lesser included offense.

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 566 U.S. 624 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that to establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. That statute prohibits a loan servicer from charge or accept money from fee splits that are not attached to actual services rendered to the person seeking the loan.

RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Chapter 11 cramdown plan may not be confirmed if it provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of a bank's lien but does not permit the bank to credit-bid at the sale.

Decided May 29, 2012 Respondent Johnson was convicted by a Pennsylvania jury as an accom plice and co-conspirator to murder. Held: The Third Circuit did not afford due deference to the role of the jury and the Pennsylvania courts in sustaining Johnson’s due process challenge.

Reichle v. Howards, 566 U.S. 658 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit for allegedly violating a constitutional right if, at the time of an arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to the alleged rights violation.

Armour v. City of Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that declining to refund people who had paid a lump sum instead of installments into a city program was rationally related to lowering administrative costs, so it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.