United States Reports
606 volumes · 104,521 opinions
4,420 opinions in United States Reports with a Wikipedia-sourced synopsis — the cases notable enough that someone wrote an encyclopedia article about them.
- New York v. Hill (2000)528 U.S. 110
New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that scheduling of a trial date outside the 180-day period of Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD) by a defendant's counsel waived the defendant's right to dismissal on the ground that the trial did not occur within that period. The court clarified that decisions about scheduling are among those entrusted to counsel and do not require a defendant's personal consent. The trial court declared that the defense counsel's agreement to hold the trial after that period waivered Hill's IAD rights.
- Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)528 U.S. 119
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000), is a case decided before the United States Supreme Court involving U.S. criminal procedure regarding searches and seizures.
- Janet Reno Attorney Generals v. Charlie Condon Attorney General of South Carolina (2000)528 U.S. 141
Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) against a Tenth Amendment challenge.
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District (2000)528 U.S. 152
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided an appellant who was the defendant in a criminal case cannot refuse the assistance of counsel on direct appeals. This case is in contrast to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which grants criminal defendants the right to refuse counsel for trial purposes.
- Friends of the Earth Incorporateds v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc (2000)528 U.S. 167
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.
- Jeremiah Nixon Attorney General of Missouris v. Shrink Missouri Government Pac (2000)528 U.S. 377
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377 (2000), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that their earlier decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), upholding federal limits on campaign contributions also applied to state limits on campaign contributions to state offices.
- Rice v. Cayetano (2000)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional528 U.S. 495
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), was a case filed in 1996 by Big Island rancher Harold "Freddy" Rice against the state of Hawaii and argued before the United States Supreme Court. In 2000, the Court ruled that the state could not restrict eligibility to vote in elections for the Board of Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to persons of Native Hawaiian descent.
- Brancato v. Gunn (1999)528 U.S. 1
This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 528 of the United States Reports:
- Neder v. United States (1999)527 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 527 of the United States Reports:
- City of Chicago v. Morales (1999)Held municipal or local ordinance unconstitutional527 U.S. 41
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.
- Dickinson v. Zurko (1999)527 U.S. 150
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that appeals from the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences are to be reviewed for whether the Board's conclusions are supported by "substantial evidence" under the APA.
- Grupo Mexicano De Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. (1999)527 U.S. 308
Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), commonly called Grupo Mexicano, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court struck down—as beyond the equitable remedies authorized by Congress—a preliminary injunction used to freeze the assets of the defendants pending a final judgment.
- Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc (1999)527 U.S. 471
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 22, 1999. The Court decided that mitigating measures should be taken into account when determining whether one's impairment constitutes a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The holding of this case was later overturned by the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
- Tommy Olmstead Commissioner Georgia Department of Human Resourcess v. L C Jonathan Zimring (1999)527 U.S. 581
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding discrimination against people with mental disabilities. The Supreme Court held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with mental disabilities have the right to live in the community rather than in institutions if, in the words of the opinion of the Court, "the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities." The case was brought by the Atlanta Legal Aid Society on behalf of Lois…
- Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank (1999)Held federal statute unconstitutional527 U.S. 627
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (1999)Held federal statute unconstitutional527 U.S. 666
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
- John Aldens v. Maine (1999)Held federal statute unconstitutional527 U.S. 706
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held the United States Congress may not use its Article I powers to allow people to sue a state in that state's own courts without the state's consent. The Court ruled that states are protected by sovereign immunity.
- Holloway v. United States (1999)526 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 526 of the United States Reports:
- Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co. (1999)526 U.S. 32
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Blaze Construction Co., 526 U.S. 32 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state may tax the revenue of a government contractor received from work for the federal government. The states are not allowed to issue taxes where the legal incidence of the tax is on the federal government, but they can issue taxes where the economic burden of the tax falls on the federal government; i.e., the existence of the tax may indirectly increase the federal government's expenses.
- Cedar Rapids Community School District, v. Garret F., a Minor by His Mother and Next Friend, Charlene F. (1999)526 U.S. 66
Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the related services provision in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required public school districts to fund "continuous, one-on-one nursing care for disabled children" despite arguments from the school district concerning the costs of the services." The judges relied heavily on Irving Independent School District v. Tatro. Under the Court's reading of the IDEA's relevant provisions, medical treatments such as suctioning, ventilator checks, catheterization, and others which can be administered by non-physician personnel come within the parameters of the special education law's related services.
- Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. (1999)526 U.S. 137
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that applied the Daubert standard to expert testimony from non-scientists.
- Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians (1999)Altered precedent526 U.S. 172
Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 526 U.S. 172 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the usufructuary rights of the Ojibwe (Chippewa) tribe to certain lands it had ceded to the federal government in 1837. The Court ruled that the Ojibwe retained certain hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on the ceded land.
- Jones v. United States (1999)526 U.S. 227
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, to set forth three distinct crimes, each with distinct elements. The Court drew this conclusion from the structure of the statute, under which two subsections provided for additional punishment if the defendant inflicts more serious harm. The Court also distinguished Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), because that case allowed for sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction.
- Wyoming v. Sandra Houghton (1999)526 U.S. 295
Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case which held that absent exigency, the warrantless search of a passenger's container capable of holding the object of a search for which there is probable cause is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it is justified under the automobile exception as an effect of the car.
- Mitchell v. United States (1999)526 U.S. 314
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case that considered two Fifth Amendment privileges related to a criminal defendant’s rights against self-incrimination in a Federal District Court. The court ruled (1) that a defendant who waives the privilege against self-incrimination by pleading guilty does not also waive the privilege at sentencing, and (2) that the court cannot draw an adverse inference from the defendant's silence when determining facts related to the crime which affect the severity of the sentence.
- United States v. Haggar Apparel Co. (1999)526 U.S. 380
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court holding that Chevron deference is appropriate for regulations issued by Customs on behalf of the Treasury. The statutes authorizing customs classification regulations were found consistent with the usual rule that regulations of an administering agency warrant judicial deference; and nothing in the regulation in question persuaded the Court that the Customs Service intended the regulation to have some lesser force and effect. The statutory scheme did not support the importer's argument that the regulation only applied to customs officers themselves as opposed to the adjudication of importers' refund suits in the Court of International Trade.
- Immigration and Naturalization Service, v. Juan Anibal Aguirre-Aguirre (1999)526 U.S. 415
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (1999), examined a doctrinal question last presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca. In Aguirre-Aguirre, the Court determined that federal courts had to defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, v. 203 North Lasalle Street Partnership (1999)526 U.S. 434
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court.
- Rita Saenz Director California Department of Social Servicess v. Brenda Roe Anna Doe (1999)526 U.S. 473
Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round.
- James B. Hunt, Jr. v. Martin Cromartie (1999)526 U.S. 541
Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding North Carolina's 12th congressional district.
- Florida v. Tyvessel Tyvorus White (1999)526 U.S. 541
Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence under the Fourth Amendment.
- Wilson v. Layne (1999)526 U.S. 603
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that unanimously held the entrance of a third-party not directly involved in aiding a search warrant into a private household unconstitutional. Sparked by a case where law enforcement officers were accompanied by the press during the execution of a warrant, the Court ruled that bringing along independent representatives of the media during the search of a private household does not serve a legitimate government interest and violates the Fourth Amendment, as such a third party does not legitimately contribute to the objectives of a search warrant.
- Victoria Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado, v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. (1999)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional525 U.S. 182
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.
- National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Smith (1999)525 U.S. 459
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459 (1999), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the NCAA's receipt of dues payments from colleges and universities which received federal funds, was not sufficient to subject the NCAA to a lawsuit under Title IX.
- United States v. Louisiana (1998)525 U.S. 1
This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 525 of the United States Reports:
- Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc. (1998)525 U.S. 33
Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild Inc., 525 U.S. 33 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court decision involving the validity of a union shop contract.
- Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. (1998)525 U.S. 55
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that determined what constituted being "on sale" for the purposes of barring the grant of a patent for an invention.
- Knowles v. Iowa (1998)Held state or territorial law unconstitutional525 U.S. 113
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (1998), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from further searching a vehicle which was stopped for a minor traffic offense once the officer has written a citation for the offense.
- United States v. Cabrales (1998)524 U.S. 1
This is a list of all United States Supreme Court cases from volume 524 of the United States Reports:
- Federal Election Commission v. Akins (1998)524 U.S. 11
Federal Election Commission v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case deciding that an individual could sue for a violation of a federal law pursuant to a statute enacted by the U.S. Congress which created a general right to access certain information.
- United States v. Bestfoods (1998)524 U.S. 51
United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), is a United States corporate law and environmental law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the indirect liability of a parent corporation under CERCLA is to be determined by its control over a subsidiary's facility, rather than the relationship between the corporation and subsidiary.
- Hopkins v. Reeves (1998)524 U.S. 88
Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, in death-penalty cases, the constitution does not require juries to be informed of a lesser-included offense that may suit the facts without being death-eligible when the proposed alternative is not a lesser-included offense under state law. In this case, the proposed alternative was manslaughter; however, manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense of felony murder under Nebraska law.
- Muscarello v. United States (1998)524 U.S. 125
Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case focusing on legislative interpretation of a firearms chapter of the federal criminal code. The Court was asked to rule on whether a particular statute with the phrase “carries a firearm” should be interpreted so as to be limited to carrying a firearm only on one's person or interpreted more broadly to include carrying a firearm in a vehicle. The Court held that the statute should be construed broadly and that a firearm discovered in a vehicle, including the glove compartment and trunk, would constitute as “carrying” under the statute.
- Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (1998)524 U.S. 156
Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U.S. 156 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that interest earned on client funds held in IOLTA accounts is the "private property" of the client for Takings Clause purposes.
- Forney v. Apfel (1998)524 U.S. 266
Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal of an agency decision denying benefits may appeal a district court order remanding the case to the agency for further proceedings.
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998)524 U.S. 274
Gebser v. Lago Vista 524 U.S. 274 (1998) is a United States Supreme Court ruling regarding sexual harassment in schools. The case was heard before the Rehnquist Court on March 25, 1998, and decided on June 22, 1998. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that a school district may be liable for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student, but in order for an aggrieved party to recover damages under Title IX, a school official who had authority to address the alleged discrimination must have actual knowledge of the discrimination and must be deliberately indifferent.
- United States v. Bajakajian (1998)Held federal statute unconstitutional524 U.S. 321
United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. It was the first time the Court struck down the federal government's "aggressive use of forfeiture" and the only time it has held that an imposed fine was unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
- Swidler & Berlin v. United States (1998)524 U.S. 399
Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the death of an attorney's client does not terminate attorney–client privilege with respect to records of confidential communications between the attorney and the client.
- Clinton v. City of New York (1998)Held federal statute unconstitutional524 U.S. 417
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 6–3, that the line-item veto, as implemented in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the six-justice majority that the line-item veto gave the President power over legislation unintended by the Constitution, and was therefore a violation of the separation of powers between the two branches.
- Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998)Held federal statute unconstitutional524 U.S. 498
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.