Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 4 of about 61 results (0.047 seconds)

Apr 27 2005 (FN)

Bates Vs. Dow Agrosciences Llc

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-27-2005

bates v. dow agrosciences llc - 03-388 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 bates v. dow agrosciences llc supreme court of the united states bates et al. v. dow agrosciences llc certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit no. 03 388.argued january 10, 2005 decided april 27, 2005 petitioner texas peanut farmers allege that their crops were severely damaged by the application of respondent s (dow) strongarm pesticide, which the environmental protection agency (epa) registered pursuant to its authority under the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act (fifra). petitioners gave dow notice of their intent to sue, claiming that strongarm s label recommended its use in all peanut-growing areas when dow knew or should have known that it would stunt the growth of peanuts in their soil, which had ph levels of at least 7.0. in response, dow sought a declaratory judgment in the federal district court, asserting that fifra pre-empted petitioners claims. petitioners counterclaimed, raising several state-law claims sounding in strict liability, negligence, fraud, and breach of express warranty. the district court rejected one claim on state-law grounds and found the others barred by fifra s pre-emption provision, 7 u. s. c. 136v(b). affirming, the fifth circuit held that 136v(b) expressly pre-empted the state-law claims because a judgment against dow would induce it to alter its product label. held: 1. under fifra, which was comprehensively amended in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2005 (FN)

Pace Vs. Diguglielmo

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-27-2005

pace v. diguglielmo - 03-9627 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 pace v. diguglielmo supreme court of the united states pace v . diguglielmo, superintendent, state correctional institution at graterford, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit no. 03 9627.argued february 28, 2005 decided april 27, 2005 after the pennsylvania superior court found petitioner s state postconviction petition untimely under the pennsylvania post conviction relief act (pcra) and the state supreme court denied review, petitioner sought federal habeas. the district court refused to dismiss the petition under the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 s (aedpa) statute of limitations, finding that petitioner was entitled to both statutory and equitable tolling while his pcra petition was pending even though that petition was untimely under state law. reversing, the third circuit held, with regard to statutory tolling, that an untimely pcra petition is not a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review that tolls aedpa s limitations period under 28 u. s. c. 2244(d)(2), and that there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable tolling. held: because petitioner filed his federal habeas petition beyond the deadline and is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for any of that time period, his federal petition is barred by aedpa s statute of limitations. pp. 4 10. (a) petitioner is not entitled to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2005 (FN)

Pasquantino Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-26-2005

pasquantino v. united states - 03-725 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 pasquantino v. united states supreme court of the united states pasquantino et al. v. united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit no. 03 725.argued november 9, 2004 decided april 26, 2005 petitioners carried out a scheme to smuggle large quantities of liquor into canada from the united states to evade canada s heavy alcohol import taxes. they were convicted of violating the federal wire fraud statute, 18 u. s. c. 1343, for doing so. that statute prohibits the use of interstate wires to effect any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses. the fourth circuit affirmed their convictions, rejecting petitioners argument that their prosecution contravened the common-law revenue rule, which bars courts from enforcing foreign sovereigns tax laws. the fourth circuit also held that canada s right to receive tax revenue was money or property within 1343 s meaning. held: a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute. pp. 3 21. (a) section 1343 s plain terms criminalize a scheme such as petitioners . their smuggling operation satisfies both of the 1343 elements that are in dispute here. first, canada s right to uncollected excise taxes on the liquor petitioners imported into canada is property within the statute s meaning. that right is an entitlement to collect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2005 (FN)

Johnson Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-04-2005

johnson v. united states - 03-9685 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 johnson v. united states supreme court of the united states johnson v . united states certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 03 9685.argued january 18, 2005 decided april 4, 2005 following petitioner johnson s 1994 guilty plea on a federal drug charge, the district court gave him an enhanced sentence as a career offender under the federal sentencing guidelines based on two prior georgia drug convictions. on appeal, johnson argued for the first time that he should not have received an enhanced sentence because one of the predicate georgia convictions was invalid, but the eleventh circuit affirmed his sentence and this court denied certiorari. two days later, the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa) went into effect, imposing, among other things, a 1-year statute of limitations on motions by prisoners seeking to modify their federal sentences. the 1-year period runs from the latest of four alternative dates, the last of which is the date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, 28 u. s. c. 2255, 6(4). a fifth option supplied by the courts of appeals gave prisoners whose convictions became final before aedpa a 1-year grace period running from that statute s effective date. on april 25, 1997, one year and three days after his pre-aedpa federal conviction became final and just after .....

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 30 2005 (FN)

Exxon Mobil Corp. Vs. Saudi Basic Industries Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

exxon mobil corp. v. saudi basic industries corp. - 03-1696 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 exxon mobil corp. v. saudi basic industries corp. supreme court of the united states exxon mobil corp. et al. v . saudi basic industries corp. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the third circuit no. 03 1696.argued february 23, 2005 decided march 30, 2005 the rooker-feldman doctrine, at issue in this case, has been applied by this court only twice, in rooker v. fidelity trust co ., 263 u. s. 413 , and in district of columbia court of appeals v. feldman , 460 u. s. 462 . in rooker, plaintiffs previously defeated in state court filed suit in a federal district court alleging that the adverse state-court judgment was unconstitutional and asking that it be declared null and void. 263 u. s., at 414 415. noting preliminarily that the state court had acted within its jurisdiction, this court explained that if the state-court decision was wrong, that did not make the judgment void, but merely left it open to reversal or modification in an appropriate and timely appellate proceeding. id., at 415. federal district courts, rooker recognized, are empowered to exercise only original, not appellate, jurisdictions. id., at 416. because congress has empowered this court alone to exercise appellate authority to reverse or modify a state-court judgment, ibid., the court affirmed a decree dismissing the federal suit for lack of jurisdiction, id., at 415, 417. in feldman, two .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (FN)

Rhines Vs. Weber

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

rhines v. weber - 03-9046 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 rhines v. weber supreme court of the united states rhines v. weber, warden certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit no. 03 9046.argued january 12, 2005 decided march 30, 2005 after petitioner rhines state conviction for first-degree murder and burglary became final and his state habeas petition was denied, he filed a federal habeas petition. because the 1-year statute of limitations imposed by the antiterrorism and effective death penalty act of 1996 (aedpa) was tolled while his state petition was pending, see 28 u. s. c. 2244(d)(2), he had more than 11 months before the limitations period expired. however, by the time the district court ruled that eight of his claims had not been exhausted in state court, the limitations period had run. if the court had dismissed his mixed petition, rhines would have been unable to refile after exhausting his claims, so the court decided to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he presented his unexhausted claims in state court, provided that he commenced the state proceedings within 60 days and returned to the district court within 60 days of completing the exhaustion. the eighth circuit, which had previously held that a district court has no authority to hold mixed petitions in abeyance absent truly exceptional circumstances, vacated the stay and remanded the case for the district court to determine whether rhines could proceed by deleting .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2005 (FN)

Jackson Vs. Birmingham Bd. of Ed.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-29-2005

jackson v. birmingham bd. of ed. - 02-1672 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 jackson v. birmingham bd. of ed. supreme court of the united states jackson v. birmingham board of education certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 02 1672.argued november 30, 2004 decided march 29, 2005 after petitioner, the girls basketball coach at a public high school, discovered that his team was not receiving equal funding and equal access to athletic equipment and facilities, he complained unsuccessfully to his supervisors. he then received negative work evaluations and ultimately was removed as the girls coach. he brought this suit alleging that respondent school board (board) had retaliated against him because he had complained about sex discrimination in the high school s athletic program, and that such retaliation violated title ix of the education amendments of 1972, 20 u. s. c. 1681(a), which provides that [n]o person shall, on the basis of sex, be subjected to discrimination under any education program receiving federal financial assistance. the district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that title ix s private cause of action does not include claims of retaliation, and the eleventh circuit agreed and affirmed. the appeals court also concluded that, under alexander v. sandoval , 532 u. s. 275 , the department of education s title ix regulation expressly prohibiting retaliation does not create a private cause of action, and that, even if .....

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!

Mar 22 2005 (FN)

Brown Vs. Payton

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-22-2005

brown v. payton - 03-1039 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 brown v. payton supreme court of the united states brown, warden v. payton certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 03 1039.argued november 10, 2004 decided march 22, 2005 in the penalty phase of respondent payton s trial following his conviction on capital murder and related charges, his counsel presented witnesses who testified that, during the one year and nine months payton had been incarcerated since his arrest, he had made a sincere commitment to god, participated in prison bible study and a prison ministry, and had a calming effect on other prisoners. the trial judge gave jury instructions that followed verbatim the text of a california statute, setting forth 11 different factors, labeled (a) through (k), to guide the jury in determining whether to impose a death sentence or life imprisonment. the last such instruction, the so-called factor (k) instruction, directed jurors to consider [a]ny other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime. in his closing, the prosecutor offered jurors his incorrect opinion that factor (k) did not allow them to consider anything that happened after the crime. although he also told them several times that, in his view, they had not heard any evidence of mitigation, he discussed payton s evidence in considerable detail and argued that the circumstances and facts of the case, coupled .....

Tag this Judgment!


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