United States Reports

Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee's protected trait had a determinative influence on the employer's decisionmaking.

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1993. The Court held that, when federal courts are deciding whether to grant habeas relief due to unconstitutional error at trial, they should use the harmless error standard outlined in Kotteakos v. United States to assess such claims.

Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Fifth Amendment Miranda v. Arizona arguments can be raised again in federal habeas corpus proceedings, even if a criminal defendant had a fair chance to argue those claims in state court. The Court rejected the state's argument that Stone v. Powell, a case holding the opposite in the context of Fourth Amendment claims on habeas review, applied in Williams' case.

United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case that distinguished between forfeiture and waiver. Quoting from Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938), the Court noted, "Whereas forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the "intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.... Whether a particular right is waivable; whether the defendant must participate personally in the waiver; whether certain procedures are required for waiver; and whether the defendant's choice must be particularly informed or voluntary, all depend on the right at stake." According to the Court, mere forfeiture, as opposed to waiver, does not extinguish an "error" under Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in which the court decided whether a portion of a dwelling unit exclusively used as a principal place of business for any trade or business of a taxpayer would allow a deduction to the taxpayer's income taxes under Internal Revenue Code Section 280A(c)(1)(A).

Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court decision that determined that a question of whether the Senate had properly tried an impeachment was political in nature and could not be resolved in the courts if there was no applicable judicial standard.

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1985(3) of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Alexandria Health Clinic, along with several other abortion clinics, sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from blocking the entrance to clinics in Washington D.C.

Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court which held that failure to make an objection under Collins v. Lockhart did not constitute undue prejudice required by Strickland v. Washington, because the error did not cause a fundamentally unfair trial, as opposed to merely a different outcome of the case.

Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 6 votes to 3 that a claim of actual innocence does not entitle a petitioner to federal habeas corpus relief by way of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447 (1993), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the assertion that attempted monopolization may be proven merely by demonstration of unfair or predatory conduct. Instead, conduct of a single firm could be held to be unlawful attempted monopolization only when it actually monopolized or dangerously threatened to do so. Thus, the Court rejected the conclusion that injury to competition could be presumed to follow from certain conduct. The causal link must be demonstrated.

Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that severance is not automatically required in every case where co-defendants desire to make mutually antagonistic defenses. That is, a court is not required to split one trial with many defendants into many trials with one defendant each as soon as the defendants start arguing that their co-defendants are the ones at fault and vice versa. The defendants must show that one of their rights will be prejudiced unless the case is severed before severance is required. And, even if there is prejudice, it is possible that that may be cured with jury instructions rather than severance.

Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1 (1992), was a US Supreme Court opinion denying a petition for motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as the petitioner had repeatedly abused the process. Specifically, the Court prohibited the petitioner from filing further non-criminal in forma pauperis petitions, and that all petitions filed must be compliant with Court rules and must have had the filing fee paid. The dissent, written by Justice Stevens, argued that the result violated the "open access" of the Court.

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a seizure of property like that which occurs during an eviction, even absent a search or an arrest, implicates the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the Amendment protects property as well as privacy interests, in both criminal as well as civil contexts. Finally, saying that "certain wrongs affect more than a single right", the Court left open the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections against deprivation of property without due process of law may also be implicated.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 505 of the United States Reports:

Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant cannot make peremptory challenges based solely on race. The court had previously held in Batson v. Kentucky (1986) that prosecutors cannot make peremptory challenges based on race, but did not address whether defendants could use them. The court had already ruled in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991) that the Batson prohibition also applies to civil litigants because they are state actors during the jury selection process. However, in Polk County v. Dodson, the court had held that a public defender is not a state actor in the context of a lawsuit for inadequate legal representation.

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88 (1992), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. The Court determined that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations preempted various Illinois provisions for licensing workers who handled hazardous waste materials.

Forsyth County, Georgia v. The Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court limited the ability of local governments to charge fees for the use of public places for private activities. By a 5–4 vote, the court ruled that an ordinance allowing the local government to set varying fees for different events violated the First Amendment due to the lack of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards" governing the amount of the fee.

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, found that the federal government may not require states to “take title” to radioactive waste through the "Take Title" provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which the Court found to exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The Court permitted the federal government to induce shifts in state waste policy through other means.

Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. William Wrigley Jr. Co., 505 U.S. 214 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the application of state franchise taxes to out-of-state businesses.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously invalidated Saint Paul, Minnesota's Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance and reversed the conviction of a teenager for burning a cross on the lawn of an African-American family. The ordinance was held to violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech. The court reasoned that the ordinance constituted "viewpoint discrimination" that could cause exclusions from the marketplace of ideas.

Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the Court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude lawsuits by smokers against tobacco companies on the basis of several claims. The case examined whether tobacco companies could be liable for not warning the consumer "adequately" of the dangers of cigarettes as well as ultimately held the stance that smoking was in fact a free choice. The ruling also questioned the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 to determine whether the warning labels on the cigarette products by law had to be less or more alarming than the warning issued.

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It held that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp.

Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that the 8+1⁄2 year delay between Doggett's indictment and actual arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, arguing that the government had been negligent in pursuing him and that Doggett had remained unaware of the indictment until his arrest.

United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that, although the state had eliminated explicit prohibitions on the admission of black students to institutions including the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the University of Southern Mississippi, the Court of Appeals had not properly reviewed the set of discriminatory policies used by the state to suppress black enrollment at these schools.

Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court held that Two Pesos, Inc. infringed upon the trademark of Taco Cabana, Inc. by copying the design of their restaurants. Writing for a majority of the court, Justice Byron White concluded that trade dress is inherently distinctive under the Lanham Act and that plaintiffs are not required to prove secondary meaning in suits to protect their trademark. The Court upheld an award of $3.7 million in damages, and Taco Cabana ultimately acquired all of Two Pesos' assets in 1993 for $22 million.

Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the 1990 Census. It is most notable in U.S. administrative law for its holding that the Administrative Procedure Act does not authorize statutory review of actions delegated by Congress to the president of the United States.

a. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3203 (1990) (definition of medical emergency) b. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3205 (1990) (informed consent) c. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3206 (1990) (parental consent) d. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 3207 and 3214 (1990) (reporting requirements)?

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the "total takings" test for evaluating whether a particular regulatory action constitutes a regulatory taking that requires compensation.

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 504 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. The opinion was written by Justice Scalia, and the dissent by Justice Stevens.

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The individual remained involuntarily confined on the justification that he was potentially dangerous even though he no longer suffered from the mental illness that served as a basis for his original commitment.

Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial.

Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that private citizens are not entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 suits over misusing an unconstitutional public process merely because they presumed the process was constitutional.

Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Tennessee law that restricted political campaigning within 100 feet (30 m) of a polling place did not violate the First Amendment.

Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (1992), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that, to prove that a public official has committed extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act by accepting a payment, the government is not required to show that the official took an "affirmative act" to induce the payment.

Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court ruling, since overturned, concerning use tax. The decision effectively prevented states from collecting any sales tax from retail purchases made over the internet or other e-commerce route unless the seller had a physical presence in the state. The ruling was based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, preventing states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by the United States Congress. The case resulted from an attempt by North Dakota seeking to collect sales tax on licensed computer software offered by the Quill Corporation, an office supply retailer with no North Dakota presence, that allowed users to place orders directly with Quill.

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U.S. 334 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that an Alabama law imposing a fee (of $72 per ton) on out-of-state hazardous waste being disposed of in-state violated the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court held that various Hawaii laws which worked to effectively prohibit write-in voting were not in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that under Hawaii's election laws, it was relatively easy to sign up and be nominated for an election, and that the only reasonable fault is on candidates who fail to navigate that process.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992), is a 1992 Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that even though an equipment manufacturer lacked significant market power in the primary market for its equipment—copier-duplicators and other imaging equipment—nonetheless, it could have sufficient market power in the secondary aftermarket for repair parts to be liable under the antitrust laws for its exclusionary conduct in the aftermarket. The reason was that it was possible that, once customers were committed to the particular brand by having purchased a unit, they were "locked in" and no longer had any realistic alternative to turn to for repair parts.

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company, 504 U.S. 505 (1992), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence."

United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the respondent's forcible abduction from a foreign country, despite the existence of an extradition treaty with said country, does not prohibit him from being tried before a U.S. court for violations of American criminal laws. The ruling reconfirmed the Ker-Frisbie Doctrine, established in Ker v. Illinois (1886) and Frisbie v. Collins (1952), which generally permits the prosecution of criminal defendants regardless of whether their presence was obtained in accordance with an applicable extradition treaty.

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, notwithstanding the traditional exception to diversity jurisdiction prohibiting federal courts from hearing domestic relations cases, federal courts may hear money damages suits between former spouses. In Ankenbrandt, a woman, as next friend of her two daughters, sued her ex-husband and his “female companion” for abusing the children of the marriage. The mother filed suit in federal court, requesting money damages. In the proceedings below, both the federal district court and the federal appellate court held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear domestic relations cases, and that therefore, the case had to be dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, reversed.

Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case established the right of defendants to challenge for cause any juror that would automatically impose the death penalty in all capital cases.

Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, 504 U.S. 768 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a company is in multiple and independent lines of business in and outside a state, then that state may tax the company's income from in-state activities only.

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court decision where the Court on a 7–2 vote held that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.

Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court Case in which the Court decided, in a unanimous vote, that monetary relief is available under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments of 1972.

INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that expenditures incurred by a target corporation in the course of a friendly takeover are nondeductible capital expenditures.

Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled that a person's rights of association and due process, as granted under the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, cannot be infringed upon if such an association has no bearing on the case at hand.

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that a court of appeals may review an interlocutory order issued by a district court acting in its appellate capacity in a bankruptcy matter, when such review is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The Court unanimously agreed on the statutory interpretation outcome but split over whether it was proper to consult legislative history in reaching that conclusion.