Volume 572 — United States Reports

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the one-year period in which the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a parent with an automatic return remedy cannot be equitably tolled.

BG Group plc v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a court of the United States that is reviewing an arbitration award made under a treaty should interpret and apply "threshold" provisions concerning arbitration using the framework developed for interpreting similar provisions in ordinary contracts.

Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that convicting someone for aiding and abetting requires the prosecution to prove conduct extending to some part of the crime and intent extending to the whole crime.

Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, 572 U.S. 93 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a railroad right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement. Therefore, when a railroad abandons such a right-of-way, the easement disappears, and the land owner regains unburdened use of the land.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation (described by Justice Scalia in 2014 as "sprawling", and by others as having the potential to go on as long as Jarndyce v. Jarndyce) has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 572 U.S. 141 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that severance payments to employees who are involuntarily terminated during a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

United States v. Castleman, 572 U.S. 157 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2014. The Court held that under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9), a federal statute which prohibits possession of firearms by someone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence", a conviction does not have to involve the use of violent force to qualify for this prohibition. Instead, the Court concluded that a crime qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" so long as the amount of force used to commit the crime was sufficient to support a conviction for common-law battery.

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on campaign finance. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to all national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, 572 U.S. 273 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts a state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligations that the parties voluntarily adopt.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck.

White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rejection of the requested jury instruction in this case was not objectively unreasonable or contrary to clearly established law, so the defendant did not satisfy the requirements for seeking habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, the government or the victim must establish a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages. The decision vacated the appellate court decision, and remanded it. A legislative fix was subsequently proposed by Marci Hamilton. Ultimately, the Amy, Vicky, and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act of 2018 was introduced in response.

EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 572 U.S. 489 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Clean Air Act does not require that states be given a second opportunity to file a state implementation plan after the Environmental Protection Agency has quantified interstate pollution obligations under a reasonable interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision.

Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), is one of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued on April 29, 2014 regarding patent lawsuit fee-shifting (the other case being Highmark v. Allcare Health). The Supreme Court essentially made it easier for courts to make the loser pay for all attorney costs if the lawsuit is regarded as frivolous. In other words, "the Supreme Court's decision grants judges more leeway to crack down on baseless claims." The decision is particularly relevant for the so-called patent trolls, which "will have to add a new variable to their calculations before pursuing a marginal lawsuit over their intellectual property: the other side's legal fees." The decision was unanimous, with the opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Petitioner Highmark Inc. moved for fees under the Patent Act's fee- shifting provision, which authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” 35… Held: All aspects of a district court's exceptional-case determination under § 285 should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They argued that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.

Petitioner Robers was convicted of a federal crime for submitting fraudu- lent mortgage loan applications to two banks. Held: The phrase “any part of the property . . . returned” refers to the property the banks lost, namely, the money they lent to Robers, and not to the collateral the banks received, namely, the houses.

Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when resolving questions of qualified immunity at summary judgment, a court must take all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, including whether a constitutional right was clearly established.

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly mental retardation) is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.

Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case holding secret service officers who moved protesters away from the president were protected by qualified immunity. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The case arose out of a campaign stop President George W. Bush made during the 2004 presidential campaign. Prior to the campaign event, Bush dined at a restaurant near where a group of supporters and a group of protesters had gathered. Two secret service agents directed local police to move the protesters to protect the president. The protesters sued the agents in the U.S. District Court of the District of Oregon. The agents filed a motion to dismiss which was eventually granted based upon the Supreme Court's decision.

Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving the use of force by police officers during high-speed car chases. After first holding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, the Court held that the conduct of the police officers involved in the case did not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case examining whether a federal court has jurisdiction over activity that violates the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act but takes place off Indian lands, and, if so, whether tribal sovereign immunity prevents a state from suing in federal court. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the State of Michigan's suit against Bay Mills is barred by tribal immunity.

Decided May 27, 2014 Petitioner Martinez's criminal trial was delayed nearly four years because the State could not locate the two complaining witnesses. Held: Martinez's acquittal bars his retrial. Few if any rules of criminal procedure are clearer than the rule that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Crist v. Bretz, 437 U. S. 28, 35.

Bond v. United States, 572 U.S. 844 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether international arms control agreements may regulate local crime. More specifically, it found that an attack committed by the petitioner, Carol Anne Bond, involving dangerous toxicants, was not usage of a chemical weapon under section 229(a)(1) of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA), a law passed to bring the United States into compliance with the namesake treaty. The case followed up on a 2011 opinion of the same name involving the same parties. Bond had been convicted of using a chemical weapon after she was caught spreading a mixture of toxic substances around her best friend's home, having learned of an affair between her and Bond's husband.

The Patent Act requires that a patent specifcation “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as [the]… Held: A patent is invalid for indefniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent's specifcation and prosecution history, fail to inform, with Cite as: 572 U. S. 898 (2014) 899 Syllabus reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the in- vention.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015), is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps (so-called divided infringement).