United States Reports

New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010), is a U.S. labor law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot make decisions without at least three members on a panel.

Stop the Beach Renourishment v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 560 U.S. 702 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court did not effect an unconstitutional taking of littoral property owners' rights to future accretions and to contact the water by upholding Florida's beach renourishment program.

Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the extent to which the right to privacy applies to electronic communications in a government workplace. It was an appeal by the city of Ontario, California, from a Ninth Circuit decision holding that it had violated the Fourth Amendment rights of two of its police officers when it disciplined them following an audit of pager text messages that discovered many of those messages were personal in nature, some sexually explicit. The Court unanimously held that the audit was work-related and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Schwab v. Reilly, 560 U.S. 770 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when the Bankruptcy Code allows the debtor to exempt a dollar value corresponding to specific property from seizure by creditors, claiming the full anticipated dollar value of the property does not exempt the property from seizure if the true dollar value of the property is greater than anticipated. Additionally, the bankruptcy trustee representing the bankruptcy estate does not need to object to the anticipated valuation to preserve the ability to seize and auction the property, giving the claimed dollar value to the debtor.

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, when a defendant receives a resentencing hearing after the Sentencing Guidelines have changed in their favor, the updated Guidelines are binding on the district court at resentencing, even though the court could treat them as merely advisory if it was sentencing the defendant for the first time.

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

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.

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."

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.

Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that class action arbitration is permitted under the Federal Arbitration Act only if all parties specifically agree to it.

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.

Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court decision on the applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. It further examined issues of previous court decisions on jury instructions and the effectiveness of counsel.

NRG Power Marketing, LLC v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, 558 U.S. 165 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Mobile–Sierra presumption does not depend on the identity of the complainant who seeks Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigation.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the statute that makes certain discretionary determinations of the attorney general immune to judicial review does not allow the attorney general to declare determinations discretionary and immune to review via regulations.

South Carolina v. North Carolina, 558 U.S. 256 (2010), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States settled a dispute between the states of South Carolina and North Carolina regarding which parties may intervene in litigation between two states over water rights. By a 5–4 vote, the Court held that an interstate water authority and the Duke Energy Corporation could intervene, while ruling unanimously that the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, could not.

Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state court's conclusion that the petitioner's counsel made a strategic decision not to pursue or present evidence of his mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable determination of the facts. The Court therefore denied the habeas corpus petition. Having thus disposed of the claim, the Court declined to decide the issues the petition raised about interpreting the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court about campaign finance law, in which the Court held that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion and all Republican-appointed justices concurring. All Democratic-appointed justices dissented.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.

Beard v. Kindler, 558 U.S. 53 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that deals with the federal review of state laws, known as the adequate and independent state ground doctrine.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on labor disputes.

Alvarez v. Smith, 558 U.S. 87 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision on seizure of property by the Chicago Police Department, however the case was declared moot by the Court as the parties agreed that there was no longer contention over the property seized.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that disclosure orders adverse to attorney–client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine.

Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 557 U.S. 1 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the tonnage clause of the United States Constitution.

Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for deportation purposes, fraud is an aggravated felony when the loss to the victims exceeds $10,000, and that refers to the particular circumstances in which an offender committed fraud on a particular occasion. That is, the damages amount is not an element of the crime and does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the Constitution's Due Process Clause does not require states to turn over DNA evidence to a party seeking a civil suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that even when there is an apparent inconsistency between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents the government from relitigating facts that were necessarily decided by the acquittals in future prosecutions.

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. 137 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a bankruptcy settlement that immunizes a third party from liability based on events relevant to the bankruptcy is enforceable and cannot be challenged after the Bankruptcy Court approves the settlement with those terms.

Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009. It involved the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (2009), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and in particular its requirement that proposed electoral-law changes in certain states must be approved by the federal government. In a 9–0 decision, the Court concluded that the district was eligible to apply for an exemption (bailout) from this section per Section 4(a), because the definition of "political subdivision" in Section 14(c)(2) included a district of this nature. In an 8–1 opinion, the Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of that provision, citing the principle of constitutional avoidance.

Forest Grove School District v. T. A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) authorizes reimbursement for private special education services when a public school fails to provide a "free appropriate public education" (FAPE) and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special education services through the public school.

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake. The case addressed tailings from the Kensington mine, an underground mine located in Alaska. The gold mine had not operated since 1928, and Coeur Alaska obtained a permit in 2005 from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to dispose of up to 4.5 million tons of tailings in Lower Slate Lake, which is located in a National Forest. The suit was filed by three environmental non-governmental organizations and brought before the United States District Court for the District of Alaska who found in favor of Coeur Alaska. The District Court's decision was overturned by the U.S.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.