Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 3 of about 61 results (0.045 seconds)

Jun 06 2005 (FN)

Gonzales Vs. Raich

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

gonzales v. raich - 03-1454 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 gonzales v. raich supreme court of the united states gonzales, attorney general, et al. v. raich et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 03 1454.argued november 29, 2004 decided june 6, 2005 california s compassionate use act authorizes limited marijuana use for medicinal purposes. respondents raich and monson are california residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. after federal drug enforcement administration (dea) agents seized and destroyed all six of monson s cannabis plants, respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal controlled substances act (csa) to the extent it prevents them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. respondents claim that enforcing the csa against them would violate the commerce clause and other constitutional provisions. the district court denied respondents motion for a preliminary injunction, but the ninth circuit reversed, finding that they had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the claim that the csa is an unconstitutional exercise of congress commerce clause authority as applied to the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient s physician pursuant to valid california state law. the court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2005 (FN)

Rousey Vs. Jacoway

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-04-2005

rousey v. jacoway - 03-1407 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 rousey v. jacoway supreme court of the united states rousey et ux. v. jacoway certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 03 1407.argued december 1, 2004 decided april 4, 2005 several years after petitioners deposited distributions from their pension plans into individual retirement accounts (iras), they filed a joint petition under chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. they sought to shield portions of their iras from their creditors by claiming them as exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 u. s. c. 522(d)(10)(e), which provides, inter alia, that a debtor may withdraw from the estate his right to receive a payment under a stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, annuity, or similar plan or contract on account of age. respondent jacoway, the bankruptcy trustee, objected to the rouseys exemption and moved for turnover of the iras to her. the bankruptcy court sustained her objection and granted her motion, and the bankruptcy appellate panel (bap) agreed. the eighth circuit affirmed, concluding that, even if the rouseys iras were similar plans or contracts to the plans specified in 522(d)(10)(e), their iras gave them no right to receive payment on account of age, but were instead savings accounts readily accessible at any time for any purpose. held: the rouseys can exempt ira assets from the bankruptcy estate because the iras fulfill both of the 522(d)(10)(e) requirements at issue here .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 22 2005 (FN)

Muehler Vs. Mena

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-22-2005

muehler v. mena - 03-1423 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 muehler v. mena supreme court of the united states muehler et al. v. mena certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 03 1423.argued december 8, 2004 decided march 22, 2005 respondent mena and others were detained in handcuffs during a search of the premises they occupied. petitioners were lead members of a police detachment executing a search warrant of these premises for, inter alia , deadly weapons and evidence of gang membership. mena sued the officers under 42 u. s. c. 1983, and the district court found in her favor. the ninth circuit affirmed, holding that the use of handcuffs to detain mena during the search violated the fourth amendment and that the officers questioning of mena about her immigration status during the detention constituted an independent fourth amendment violation. held: 1. mena s detention in handcuffs for the length of the search did not violate the fourth amendment. that detention is consistent with michigan v. summers , 452 u. s. 692 , 705, in which the court held that officers executing a search warrant for contraband have the authority to detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted. the court there noted that minimizing the risk of harm to officers is a substantial justification for detaining an occupant during a search, id. , at 702 703, and ruled that an officer s authority to detain incident to a search is categorical and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 24 2005 (FN)

illinois Vs. Caballes

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-2005

illinois v. caballes - 03-923 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 supreme court of the united states illinois v. caballes certiorari to the supreme court of illinois no. 03 923.argued november 10, 2004 decided january 24, 2005 after an illinois state trooper stopped respondent for speeding and radioed in, a second trooper, overhearing the transmission, drove to the scene with his narcotics-detection dog and walked the dog around respondent s car while the first trooper wrote respondent a warning ticket. when the dog alerted at respondent s trunk, the officers searched the trunk, found marijuana, and arrested respondent. at respondent s drug trial, the court denied his motion to suppress the seized evidence, holding, inter alia , that the dog s alerting provided sufficient probable cause to conduct the search. respondent was convicted, but the illinois supreme court reversed, finding that because there were no specific and articulable facts to suggest drug activity, use of the dog unjustifiably enlarged a routine traffic stop into a drug investigation. held: a dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the fourth amendment. pp. 2 4. 207 ill. 2d 504, 802 n. e. 2d 202, vacated and remanded. stevens, j., delivered the opinion of the court, in which o connor, scalia, kennedy, thomas, and breyer, jj., joined. souter, j., filed a dissenting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 13 2005 (FN)

Merck Kgaa Vs. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-13-2005

merck kgaa v. integra lifesciences i, ltd. - 03-1237 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 merck kgaa v. integra lifesciences i, ltd. supreme court of the united states merck kgaa v . integra lifesciences i, ltd., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit no. 03 1237.argued april 20, 2005 decided june 13, 2005 it is not an act of [patent] infringement to use or import into the united states a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a federal law which regulates the use of drugs. 35 u. s. c. 271(e)(1). the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act of 1938 (fdca) is such a law. under the fdca, a drug maker must submit research data to the food and drug administration (fda) in an investigational new drug application (ind) when seeking authorization to conduct human clinical trials, and in a new drug application (nda) when seeking authorization to market a new drug. respondents filed a patent-infringement suit, claiming, inter alia, that petitioner had willfully infringed their patents by supplying respondents rgd peptides to other defendants for use in preclinical research. petitioner answered, among other things, that 271(e)(1) exempted its actions from infringement. the jury found otherwise and awarded damages. in post-trial motions, the district court affirmed the jury s award and denied petitioner s motion for judgment as a matter of law. the federal circuit affirmed that .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 2005 (FN)

Cutter Vs. Wilkinson

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-31-2005

cutter v. wilkinson - 03-9877 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 cutter v. wilkinson supreme court of the united states cutter et al. v . wilkinson, director, ohio department of rehabilitation and correction, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 03 9877.argued march 21, 2005 decided may 31, 2005 section 3 of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000 (rluipa), 42 u. s. c. 2000cc 1(a)(1) (2), provides in part: no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution, unless the burden furthers a compelling governmental interest, and does so by the least restrictive means. petitioners, current and former inmates of ohio state institutions, allege, inter alia , that respondent prison officials violated 3 by failing to accommodate petitioners exercise of their nonmainstream religions in a variety of ways. respondents moved to dismiss that claim, arguing, among other things, that 3, on its face, improperly advances religion in violation of the first amendment s establishment clause. rejecting that argument, the district court stated that rluipa permits safety and security undisputedly compelling state interests to outweigh an inmate s claim to a religious accommodation. on the thin record before it, the court could not find that enforcement of rluipa, inevitably, would compromise prison security. reversing on interlocutory appeal, the sixth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2005 (FN)

Dye Vs. Hofbauer

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-11-2005

dye v. hofbauer - 04-8384 (2005) dye v. hofbauer - 04-8384 (2005) per curiam dye v. hofbauer 546 u. s. ____ (2005) supreme court of the united states paul allen dye v. gerald hofbauer, warden on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 04 8384.?decided october 11, 2005 per curiam. tried by a jury for the third time, petitioner paul allen dye was convicted in the recorders court in detroit, michigan, on two counts of murder and one count of possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. his defense in each of his three trials was that the crimes were committed by one of the prosecution s key witnesses, who was present at the scene of the crime. the michigan court of appeals upheld the convictions on direct review, people v. dye , no. 136707 (nov. 28, 1995) (per curiam), app. to pet. for cert. 109, and further review was denied by the supreme court of michigan, people v. dye , 453 mich. 852, 551 n. w. 2d 189 (1996). petitioner sought relief in habeas corpus in the united states district court for the eastern district of michigan, alleging various federal constitutional claims. denied relief, petitioner appealed to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. over the next five years, the court of appeals issued various orders and two opinions in the case. 45 fed. appx. 428 (ca6 2002) (dye i); 111 fed. appx. 363 (ca6 2004) (dye ii). in dye i , a majority of a divided three-judge panel ruled the state .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2005 (FN)

Stewart Vs. Dutra Constr. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2005

stewart v. dutra constr. co. - 03-814 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 stewart v. dutra constr. co. supreme court of the united states stewart v. dutra construction co. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit no. 03 814.argued november 1, 2004 decided february 22, 2005 as part of a project to extend the massachusetts turnpike, respondent dutra construction company dug a trench beneath boston harbor using its dredge, the super scoop , a floating platform with a bucket that removes silt from the ocean floor and dumps it onto adjacent scows. the super scoop has limited means of self-propulsion, but can navigate short distances by manipulating its anchors and cables. when dredging the trench here, it typically moved once every couple of hours. petitioner, a marine engineer hired by dutra to maintain the super scoop s mechanical systems, was seriously injured while repairing a scow s engine when the super scoop and the scow collided. he sued dutra under the jones act, alleging that he was a seaman injured by dutra s negligence, and under 5(b) of the longshore and harbor workers compensation act (lhwca), 33 u. s. c. 905(b), which authorizes covered employees to sue a vessel owner as a third party for an injury caused by the owner s negligence. the district court granted dutra summary judgment on the jones act claim, and the first circuit affirmed. on remand, the district court granted dutra summary judgment on the lhwca claim. in affirming, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 31 2005 (FN)

Kane Vs. Garcia Espitia

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-31-2005

kane v. garcia espitia - 04-1538 (2005) kane v. garcia espitia - 04-1538 (2005) 546 u. s. ____ (2005) 546 u. s. ____ (2005) 546 u. s. ____ (2005) supreme court of the united states anthony kane, warden v. joe garcia espitia on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 1538.?decided october 31, 2005 per curiam. respondent garcia espitia, a criminal defendant who chose to proceed pro se , was convicted in california state court of carjacking and other offenses. he had received no law library access while in jail before trial despite his repeated requests and court orders to the contrary and only about four hours of access during trial, just before closing arguments. (of course, he had declined, as was his right, to be represented by a lawyer with unlimited access to legal materials.) the california courts rejected his argument that his restricted library access violated his sixth amendment rights. once his sentence became final, he petitioned in federal district court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 u. s. c. 2254. the district court denied relief, but the court of appeals for the ninth circuit reversed, holding that the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated espitia s constitutional right to represent himself as established by the supreme court in faretta [v. california, 422 u. s. 806 (1975)]. garcia espitia v. ortiz , 113 fed. appx. 802, 804 (2004). the warden s petition for certiorari and respondent s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2005 (FN)

Schriro Vs. Smith

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-17-2005

schriro v. smith - 04-1475 (2005) schriro v. smith - 04-1475 (2005) 546 u. s. ____ (2005) schriro v. smith 546 u. s. ____ (2005) supreme court of the united states dora b. schriro, director, arizona department of corrections v. robert douglas smith on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 04 1475.?decided october 17, 2005 per curiam. in 1982, an arizona jury convicted respondent robert douglas smith of first-degree murder, kidnaping, and sexual assault. he was sentenced to death. the convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and smith s state petitions for postconviction relief proved unsuccessful. smith then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the united states district court for the district of arizona. in none of these proceedings did smith argue that he was mentally retarded or that his mental retardation made him ineligible for the death penalty. smith had, however, presented evidence in mitigation during the sentencing phase of his trial showing that he had low intelligence. the district court denied smith s petition for habeas corpus in 1996. following several rounds of appeals, remands, and petitions for certiorari to this court (including one successful petition by the state, see stewart v. smith , 536 u. s. 856 (2002) (per curiam) ), and after we had issued our decision in atkins v. virginia , 536 u. s. 304 (2002), the case returned to the ninth circuit. shortly thereafter, smith .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //