United States Reports

Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. McCoy, 562 U.S. 195 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, before August 2009, Regulation Z did not require banks to provide credit-card holders with a change-in-terms notice before raising their interest rate after a delinquency or default.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the Vaccine Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Ala. Dept. of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2011), was a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that a railroad may challenge a state's sales and use taxes as "discriminatory" under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) if the state exempts the railroad's competitors from the tax.

Walker v. Martin, 562 U.S. 307 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state's rule requiring state habeas petitions to be filed "as promptly as the circumstances allow" constitutes an independent state ground that is adequate to bar habeas relief in federal court.

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court unanimously held that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, promulgated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, does not federally preempt state tort lawsuits against auto manufacturers from injuries caused by a defective lack of certain types of seat belts.

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court further developed the "primary purpose" test to determine whether statements are "testimonial" for Confrontation Clause purposes. In Bryant, the Court expanded upon the test first articulated in Davis v. Washington, "addressing for the first time circumstances in which the 'ongoing emergency' discussed in Davis extended to a potential threat to the responding police and the public at large." The Court stated that determination of whether an interrogation's primary purpose was to assist in an "ongoing emergency" was an objective evaluation of the circumstances "in which the encounter occur[ed] and the statements and actions of the parties."

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case on aspects of corporate personhood. It held that the exemption from Freedom of Information Act disclosure requirements for law enforcement records which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" does not protect information related to corporate privacy.

Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an employer may be held liable for employment discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) if a biased supervisor's actions are a proximate cause of an adverse employment action, even if the ultimate decision-maker was not personally biased. This case affirmed the 'Cat's Paw' theory of liability.

Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims does not have jurisdictional consequences.

Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.

Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011), is a 2011 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether a United States District Court properly handled the sentencing of a former methamphetamine dealer. He was originally sentenced to 24 months in prison, far shorter than what federal guidelines generally specify for crimes of that nature. Prosecutors appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which remanded the case back to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, which affirmed the original sentence after testimony relating the defendant's rehabilitation. The case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit again, and was again remanded. A different District Court judge gave him a 65-month sentence.

Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011), is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the route through which a prisoner may obtain biological DNA material for testing to challenge his conviction; whether through a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition. A majority of the Court held that the civil rights path was the appropriate path.

Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that it is proper to toll the time available for a habeas petition upon a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or claim.

Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 2 only allows the government to withhold records relating to employee relations and human resources issues. In the 30 years before Milner, the courts of appeal had developed a different test for applying Exemption 2: Milner invalidated that test.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed the mandatory sentencing increase under federal law for the possession or use of a deadly weapon in drug trafficking and violent crimes. In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which required a minimum five-year prison sentence, was to be imposed in addition to any other mandatory sentence given for another crime, including the underlying drug-related or violent offense. The only exception to the five-year addition applied only when another provision required a longer mandatory term for conduct violating §924(c) specifically, rather than a mandatory sentence for another crime as the defendants had unsuccessfully argued.

Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified one of the requirements for imposing liability on a municipality for violations of a federal right, in lawsuits brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983).

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), was a case decided in June 2010 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the Patriot Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by United States Attorney General Eric Holder, represents one of only two times in First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has overcome strict scrutiny. The other is Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project, which sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn how to resolve conflicts peacefully.

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under the Federal Arbitration Act, where an agreement to arbitrate includes an agreement that the arbitrator will determine whether the agreement is enforceable, if a party challenges specifically the enforceability of that particular agreement, the district court considers the challenge. However, if a party challenges the enforceability of the agreement as a whole, the challenge is for the arbitrator.

Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., 561 U.S. 89 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a cargo shipment begins overseas, portions of the trip when the goods are traveling over land by train are governed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, not the Carmack Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act.

Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case decided 7-1 in favor of Monsanto. The decision allowed Monsanto to sell genetically modified alfalfa seeds to farmers, and allowed farmers to plant them, grow crops, harvest them, and sell the crop into the food supply. The case came about because the use of the seeds was approved by regulatory authorities; the approval was challenged in district court by Geertson Seed Farms and other groups who were concerned that the genetically modified alfalfa would spread too easily, and the challengers won. Monsanto appealed the district court decision and lost, and appealed again to the Supreme Court, where Monsanto won, thus upholding the original approval and allowing the seeds to be sold.

Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case which holds that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extraterritorial effect of U.S. securities legislation. Morrison extinguished two species of securities class-action claims that had proliferated in preceding years: "foreign-cubed" claims, in which foreign plaintiffs sued foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges, and "foreign-squared" claims, brought by domestic plaintiffs against foreign issuers for losses on transactions on foreign exchanges.

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 287 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, when a state prisoner obtains federal habeas corpus relief and is re-sentenced, a habeas application challenging the new judgment is not a "second or successive" challenge even if the prisoner could have challenged the original sentence on the same ground.

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346. The case involves former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling and the honest services fraud statute, which prohibits "a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services". The Court found the statute vague, meaning it was written in a manner that almost anyone could be convicted of the statute by engaging in most legal activities. However, the Court refused to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague. The Court decided to limit the application of the statute only to defendants who hold a fiduciary duty and they participate in bribery and kickback schemes.

Black v. United States, 561 U.S. 465 (2010), is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—Skilling v. United States and Weyhrauch v. United States—it dealt with the honest services provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1346.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." In so doing, the Supreme Court affirmed the rejection of an application for a patent on a method of hedging losses in one segment of the energy industry by making investments in other segments of that industry, on the basis that the abstract investment strategy set forth in the application was not patentable subject matter.

Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld, against a First Amendment challenge, the policy of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, governing official recognition of student groups, which required the groups to accept all students regardless of their status or beliefs in order to obtain recognition.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms", as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 560 of the United States Reports:

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses.

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the federal government has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to require the civil commitment of individuals already in Federal custody. The practice, introduced by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, was upheld against a challenge that it fell outside the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. The decision did not rule on any other aspect of the law's constitutionality, because only the particular issue of Congressional authority was properly before the Court.

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, 560 U.S. 183 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the ability of teams in the National Football League to conspire for purposes of a violation of §1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that employers can be sued any time they use results from employment-eligibility tests that rule out disproportionate numbers of marginalized groups. The plaintiff does not need to challenge the rule at the time of its adoption.

United States v. O'Brien, 560 U.S. 218 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when used by the prosecution to obtain a mandatory minimum sentence, the fact that a firearm was a machine gun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing.

Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 560 U.S. 242 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a fee claimant need not be a "prevailing party" to be eligible for an attorney's fees award under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Only some degree of success on the merits is required.

United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an appellate court may reverse a conviction based on a plain error raised for the first time on appeal when there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the trial's outcome. Here, the lower court reversed because there was "any possibility", however remote, that this had happened. According to the Supreme Court, the proper plain error test requires the appellant to show that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious; (3) the error affected the appellant's substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (2010), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether Muhammad Ali Samatar, prime minister of Somalia (during the dictatorship of Siad Barre) from 1987 to 1990, could be sued in United States courts for allegedly overseeing killings and other atrocities. Samatar then lived in Virginia, and some of his victims had sued him under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991.

Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010), was an original jurisdiction United States Supreme Court case. It arose from a disagreement between the state of North Carolina and the other members of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact over the funding for a joint project. Eight states had formed the compact in 1983 to manage low-level radioactive waste in the southeastern United States. In 1986, North Carolina was chosen as the location for the regional waste facility, and it asked the other states for funding to help with the project. The project stalled and was eventually shut down, despite North Carolina receiving $80 million from the other states.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that, unless and until a criminal suspect explicitly states that they are relying on their right to remain silent, their voluntary statements may be used in court and police may continue to question them. The mere act of remaining silent is not sufficient to imply the suspect has invoked their rights even when the suspect actually intended their silence to have that effect. Furthermore, a voluntary reply even after lengthy silence can be construed as waiving the right to remain silent. The Court was split, 5–4. The dissent, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that Miranda v.

Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 560 U.S. 413 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the comity doctrine, a taxpayer's complaint of allegedly discriminatory state taxation must proceed originally in state court even when the complaint is framed as a request to increase a competitor's tax burden.

Carr v. United States, 560 U.S. 438 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, which criminalizes interstate travel for sex offenders who do not register as a sex offender in the other state, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before SORNA's effective date.

Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that prisoners incarcerated in federal prisons are entitled to up to 54 days of "good time credits" for every year they are incarcerated, allowing federal inmates to reduce their sentence by up to 54 days per year of imprisonment for exhibiting good behavior. The case concerned how the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons should calculate "good time credits": whether they should be calculated based on the length of the sentence levied by the judge, or by the time actually served by the inmate.

Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a bankruptcy court calculates a debtor's projected disposable income, the court may account for changes in the debtor's income or expenses that are known or virtually certain at the time of confirmation.

Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that relation back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known, not on the amending party's knowledge or timeliness in seeking to amend the pleading.

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the term "aggravated felonies" in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(43) does not mean "any conduct punishable as a felony." Moreover, an immigration court cannot enhance the state offense of record after the conviction just because facts known to the immigration court would have authorized a greater penalty.

Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the government can reduce the fee award due to a person who has successfully sued the government to cover that person's preexisting debts to the government.

Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution where that court made clear prior to the deadline's expiration that it would order restitution.

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute of limitations under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases.