United States Reports

Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a RICO plaintiff asserting a claim predicated on mail fraud does not need to show that that plaintiff relied on the defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that plaintiffs under the False Claims Act must prove that the false claim was made with the specific intent of inducing the government to pay or approve payment of a false or fraudulent claim, rather than merely defrauding a contractor. Congress overruled this decision with the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009.

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court unanimously concluded that the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), extends to U.S. citizens held overseas by American forces subject to an American chain of command, even if acting as part of a multinational coalition. But, it found that habeas corpus provided the petitioners with no relief, holding that "Habeas corpus does not require the United States to shelter such fugitives from the criminal justice system of the sovereign with authority to prosecute them." The case dealt specifically with the appeals from Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Ahmad Omar, both naturalized citizens of the United States held by MNF-I, specifically American, forces in Iraq.

Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range; that rule applies only to "departures."

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008), was a writ of habeas corpus petition made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba. Guantánamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory, while the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control. The case was consolidated with habeas petition Al Odah v. United States.

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines, via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The case stemmed out of disputes surrounding one of the overseas investments and bank accounts of Ferdinand Marcos, Arelma S.A.. Marcos was President of the Philippines until being overthrown in the People Power Revolution.

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case involving res judicata. It held that a "virtually represented" non-party cannot be bound by a judgment.

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an action in the United States Court of Claims must always be timely, even if the government has waived timeliness.

Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the scope of liability of secondary actors, such as lawyers and accountants, for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "aiders and abettors" of fraud cannot be held secondarily liable under the private right of action authorized by §10(b) of the Exchange Act. Such defendants can only be held liable if their own conduct satisfies each of the elements for §10(b) liability. Therefore, the plaintiff must prove reliance, in making a decision to acquire or hold a security, upon a material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant.

Knight v. Commissioner, 552 U.S. 181 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that investment advisory fees generally are subject to the 2% tax-deductibility floor when incurred by a trust.

N.Y. State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U.S. 196 (2008), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court that involved a constitutional challenge brought against New York State's judicial election law, alleging that it unfairly prevented candidates from obtaining access to the ballot. The Supreme Court rejected this challenge and held that the state's election laws did not infringe upon candidates' First Amendment associational rights. Several concurring justices emphasized, however, that their decision reflected only the constitutionality of the state's election system, and not its wisdom or merit.

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case, upholding the United States's sovereign immunity against tort claims brought when "any law enforcement officer" loses a person's property. It was argued on October 29, 2007, and decided on January 22, 2008, by the Roberts Court.

LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc., 552 U.S. 248 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, although the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) does not provide a remedy for individual injuries distinct from plan injuries, it does authorize someone with a retirement account to recover from an account manager who commits fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in that person's individual account.

Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that state courts can retroactively apply a new constitutional rule of criminal procedure in post-conviction proceedings by applying state law retroactivity standards that are broader than the Teague v. Lane standard.

Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the pre-emption clause of the Medical Device Amendment bars state common-law claims that challenge the effectiveness or safety of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–1, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrules state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency.

Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 552 U.S. 364 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal law preempts state law that would control the commercial delivery of tobacco and other products harmful to children.

Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that whether "me too" evidence of discrimination offered by co-workers in support of a claim against the employer is relevant in an individual Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) case is fact based and depends on many factors; it is not appropriate for reviewing courts to apply per se rules about their admissibility or inadmissibility.

Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 27, 2008. The ruling provided guidance on what would constitute an adequate filing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a distributee accused of criminal tax evasion may claim return-of-capital treatment without producing evidence that, when the distribution occurred, either they or the corporation intended to return the capital.

Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Washington's top-two primary system does not infringe upon smaller political parties' associational rights.

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case about racial issues in jury selection in death penalty cases. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 7–2 majority, ruled that the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove African American jurors violated the Court's earlier holding in Batson v. Kentucky. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.

Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that held even when a treaty constitutes an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless it has been implemented by an act of the U.S. Congress or contains language expressing that it is "self-executing" upon ratification. The Court also ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding upon the U.S. and, like treaties, cannot be enforced by the president without authority from Congress or the U.S. Constitution.

Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that state and federal courts cannot, on a motion to vacate or to modify an arbitration award, expand the limited scope of judicial review specified in 9 U.S.C. §§ 10 and 11, including terms that were agreed upon by the parties.

New Jersey v. Delaware, 552 U.S. 597 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court case in which New Jersey sued Delaware, invoking the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), following Delaware's denial of oil company BP's petition to build a liquefied natural gas pipeline and loading facility on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River. Delaware denied BP's petition because it violated Delaware's Coastal Zone Act. BP then sought New Jersey's approval of the project. Delaware objected because the construction would require dredging of underwater land within Delaware's borders, which extend to the low-tide mark of the New Jersey shore. BP's proposal had not yet passed New Jersey's approval process when New Jersey and BP filed suit against Delaware.

New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., 552 U.S. 1 (2007), is a legal case in the United States. The case involves the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and tuition reimbursement. The case was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place October 1, 2007. The Court ruled in favor of Tom F. nine days later, on October 10, 2007, affirming the appellate court's decision with a 4–4 split. The decision did not list which justices voted which way, except that Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy did not take part. Note that as a majority of justices failed to adopt an opinion in favor of either the school district or the student, the decision of the lower appellate court, permitting tuition reimbursement, remained unaltered.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2007 term, which began October 1, 2007 and concluded September 30, 2008.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Ga. State Board of Equalization, 552 U.S. 9 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) allows a railroad to attempt to show that state methods for determining the value of railroad property result in a discriminatory determination of true market value.

Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23 (2007), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the "civil rights restored" exemption of convictions for sentence-enhancement purposes did not extend to a defendant who retained his civil rights at all times, and whose post-conviction legal status remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation..

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the federal appeals courts may not presume that a sentence falling outside the range recommended by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is unreasonable. Applying this rule to the case at hand, it upheld a sentence of 36 months' probation imposed on a man who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ecstasy in the face of a recommended sentence of 30 to 37 months in prison.

Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74 (2007), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court had earlier held in Smith v. United States (1993) that the exchange of a gun for drugs constituted "use" of a firearm for purposes of a federal statute imposing penalties for "use" of a firearm "during and in relation to" a drug trafficking crime; in Watson, the court decided that a transaction in the opposite direction does not violate the same statute (i.e., Smith holds that one "uses" a gun by giving it in exchange for drugs, and Watson holds that one does not "use" a gun by receiving it in exchange for drugs).

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court confirmed that federal district judges utilize, in an advisory (not as law) fashion, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, in cases involving conduct related to possession, distribution, and manufacture of crack cocaine.

Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1 (2007), was a case dealing with jury selection in death penalty cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that appeals courts must defer to a trial judge's decision on whether a potential juror would be able to overcome demur about the death penalty and be open to voting to impose a death sentence.

Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr (consolidated with GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Edo), 551 U.S. 47 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that where "willfulness" is a statutory condition of civil liability, it generally includes both knowing violations of a standard and reckless violations.

Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a party who achieves a preliminary injunction in a Section 1983 case is not a prevailing party for the purposes of an attorney fee award if that preliminary injunction expires and is not converted into a permanent injunction.

Beck v. PACE International Union, 551 U.S. 96 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an employer that sponsors and administers a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan does not have a fiduciary obligation under ERISA to consider a merger with a multi-employer plan as a method of terminating the plan.

Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that in AEDPA proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard from Brecht v. Abrahamson, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness.

United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U.S. 128 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, because the CERCLA's Section 107(a)(4)(B) allows a potentially responsible party (PRP) to recover costs from other PRPs, the statute provides a private cause of action to achieve that result with a lawsuit.

Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the fact that a federal agency directs, supervises, and monitors a company's activities in considerable detail does not bring that company within the scope of the statute permitting removal jurisdiction for actions against federal officers.

Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007), is a US labor law case, concerning the minimum wage.

Davenport v. Washington Education Association, 551 U.S. 177 (2007), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that it does not violate the First Amendment for a state to require its public-sector unions to receive affirmative authorization from a non-member before spending that nonmember's agency fees for election-related purposes.

Permanent Mission of India v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court construed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow a federal court to hear a lawsuit brought by the City of New York to recover unpaid property taxes levied against India and Mongolia, both of which own real estate in New York.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file.

Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case about federal court jurisdiction and foreign sovereigns which involved BC Hydro's Powerex under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA).

Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that all occupants of a car are "seized" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment during a traffic stop, not just the driver.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the securities markets were exempt from the scope of antitrust laws.

Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n v. Brentwood Academy (also called Brentwood II), 551 U.S. 291 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a rule promulgated by a statewide association engaged in state action that prohibits high-school football coaches from contacting middle-school prospects does not violate the First Amendment, and the tactics used to recruit football players rise to the level of a governmental interest.

Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. The various federal circuits have taken different approaches to defining what it means, under the PSLRA, for a plaintiff to sufficiently plead a "strong inference" of scienter (a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud). The Court held that a reasonable inference of scienter from assumed-true facts was insufficient and inconsistent with Congressional intent.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified how federal courts of appeals should implement the remedy for the Sixth Amendment violation identified in United States v. Booker. In Booker, the Court held that because the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were mandatory and binding on judges in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment required that any fact necessary to impose a sentence above the top of the authorized Guidelines range must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Booker remedy made the Guidelines merely advisory and commanded federal appeals courts to review criminal sentences for "reasonableness." Rita clarified that a sentence within the Guidelines range may be presumed "reasonable."

Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held, 5–4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from prohibiting or punishing student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use at a school-sanctioned event.