Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Sorted by: recent Court: us supreme court Year: 2005 Page 5 of about 61 results (0.129 seconds)

Mar 07 2005 (FN)

Ballard Vs. Commissioner

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-07-2005

ballard v. commissioner - 03-184 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 ballard v. commissioner supreme court of the united states ballard et ux. v. commissioner of internal revenue certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit no. 03 184.argued december 7, 2004 decided march 7, 2005 the tax court s chief judge appoints auxiliary officers, called special trial judges, to hear certain cases, 26 u. s. c. 7443a(a), (b), but ultimate decision, when tax deficiencies exceed $50,000, is reserved for the court itself, 7443a(b)(5), (c). tax court rule 183(b) governs the two-tiered proceedings in which a special trial judge hears the case, but the court renders the final decision. rule 183(b) directs that, after trial and submission of briefs, the special trial judge shall submit a report, including findings of fact and opinion, to the chief judge, [who] will assign the case to a judge of the court. in acting on the report, the assigned tax court judge must give [d]ue regard to the circumstance that the [s]pecial [t]rial [j]udge had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, must presum[e] to be correct factfindings contained in the report, and may adopt the [s]pecial [t]rial [j]udge s report or may modify it or may reject it in whole or in part. rule 183(c). until 1983, such special trial judge reports were made public and included in the record on appeal. pursuant to a rule revision that year, those reports are now withheld from the public .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 02 2005 (FN)

Tenet Vs. Doe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-02-2005

tenet v. doe - 03-1395 (2005) october term, 2004 tenet v. doe supreme court of the united states tenet et al. v. doe et ux. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 03 1395.argued january 11, 2005 decided march 2, 2005 respondent husband and wife filed suit against the united states and the director of the central intelligence agency (cia), asserting estoppel and due process claims for the cia s alleged failure to provide them with financial assistance it had promised in return for their espionage services during the cold war. the district court denied the government s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, finding that respondents claims were not barred by the rule of totten v. united states, 92 u. s. 105 , prohibiting suits against the government based on covert espionage agreements. affirming in relevant part, the ninth circuit reasoned that totten posed no bar to reviewing some of respondents claims and thus the case could proceed to trial, subject to the government s asserting the evidentiary state secrets privilege and the district court s resolving that issue. held: respondents suit is barred by the totten rule. in totten, this court concluded with no difficulty that the president had the authority to bind the united states to contracts with secret agents, observed that the very essence of such a contract was that it was secret and had to remain so, and found that allowing a former spy to bring suit to enforce such a contract .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2005 (FN)

Roper Vs. Simmons

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-01-2005

roper v. simmons - 03-633 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 roper v. simmons supreme court of the united states roper, superintendent, potosi correctional center v. simmons certiorari to the supreme court of missouri no. 03 633.argued october 13, 2004 decided march 1, 2005 at age 17, respondent simmons planned and committed a capital murder. after he had turned 18, he was sentenced to death. his direct appeal and subsequent petitions for state and federal postconviction relief were rejected. this court then held, in atkins v. virginia, 536 u. s. 304 , that the eighth amendment, applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment, prohibits the execution of a mentally retarded person. simmons filed a new petition for state postconviction relief, arguing that atkins reasoning established that the constitution prohibits the execution of a juvenile who was under 18 when he committed his crime. the missouri supreme court agreed and set aside simmons death sentence in favor of life imprisonment without eligibility for release. it held that, although stanford v. kentucky , 492 u. s. 361 , rejected the proposition that the constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders younger than 18, a national consensus has developed against the execution of those offenders since stanford . held: the eighth and fourteenth amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. pp. 6 25. (a) the eighth .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 23 2005 (FN)

Johnson Vs. California

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-23-2005

johnson v. california - 03-636 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 johnson v. california supreme court of the united states johnson v. california et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit no. 03 636.argued november 2, 2004 decided february 23, 2005 the california department of corrections (cdc) unwritten policy of racially segregating prisoners in double cells for up to 60 days each time they enter a new correctional facility is based on the asserted rationale that it prevents violence caused by racial gangs. petitioner johnson, an african-american inmate who has been intermittently double-celled under the policy s terms ever since his 1987 incarceration, filed this suit alleging that the policy violates his fourteenth amendment right to equal protection. the district court ultimately granted defendant former cdc officials summary judgment on grounds that they were entitled to qualified immunity. the ninth circuit affirmed, holding that the policy s constitutionality should be reviewed under the deferential standard articulated in turner v. safley , 482 u. s. 78 , not under strict scrutiny, and that the policy survived turner scrutiny. held: strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for an equal protection challenge to the cdc s policy. pp. 4 15. (a) because the cdc s policy is immediately suspect as an express racial classification, shaw v. reno , 509 u. s. 630 , 642, the ninth circuit erred in failing to apply strict scrutiny and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 2005 (FN)

Smith Vs. Massachusetts

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Feb-22-2005

smith v. massachusetts - 03-8661 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 smith v. massachusetts supreme court of the united states smith v. massachusetts certiorari to the appeals court of massachusetts no. 03 8661.argued december 1, 2004 decided february 22, 2005 petitioner was tried before a massachusetts jury on charges related to a shooting, including unlawful possession of a firearm. at the conclusion of the prosecution s case, petitioner moved for a not-guilty finding on the firearm count because the evidence [was] insufficient as a matter of law to sustain a conviction, mass. rule crim. proc. 25(a). the trial judge granted the motion, finding no evidence to support the requirement of the unlawful possession count that the firearm have a barrel shorter than 16 inches. the prosecution rested, and the trial proceeded on the other counts. before closing argument, the prosecution argued that under massachusetts precedent, the victim s testimony that the defendant shot him with a pistol or revolver sufficed to establish barrel length. the judge reversed her previous ruling, allowing the firearm count to go to the jury. the jury convicted petitioner on all counts. in affirming, the massachusetts appeals court held that the double jeopardy clause was not implicated because the trial judge s correction of her ruling had not subjected petitioner to a second prosecution or proceeding, and held that rule 25 did not prohibit the judge from reconsidering her decision. held: 1. .....

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!

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!

Jan 24 2005 (FN)

Bell Vs. Cone

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-24-2005

bell v. cone - 04-394 (2005) bell v. cone - 04-394 (2005) per curiam bell v. cone 543 u. s. ____ (2005) supreme court of the united states ricky bell, warden v. gary bradford cone on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit no. 04 394.decided january 24, 2005 per curiam. the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit granted a writ of habeas corpus to respondent gary bradford cone after concluding that the especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance found by the jury at the sentencing phase of his trial was unconstitutionally vague, and that the tennessee supreme court failed to cure any constitutional deficiencies on appeal. 359 f. 3d 785, 799 (2004). because this result fails to accord to the state court the deference required by 28 u. s. c. 2254(d), we grant the petition for certiorari and respondent s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse. i respondent killed shipley todd, 93, and his wife cleopatra, 79, on august 10, 1980, in their home at the conclusion of a 2-day crime spree. the killings were accomplished in a brutal and callous fashion: the elderly victims were repeatedly beaten about the head until they died, state v. cone , 665 s. w. 2d 87, 90 91 (tenn. 1984), and their bodies were subsequently discovered horribly mutilated and cruelly beaten, id ., at 90. a tennessee jury convicted respondent of, inter alia , two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 12 2005 (FN)

United States Vs. Booker

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-12-2005

united states v. booker - 04-104 (2005) syllabus october term, 2004 united states v. booker supreme court of the united states united states v. booker certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit no. 04 104.argued october 4, 2004 decided january 12, 2005 under the federal sentencing guidelines, the sentence authorized by the jury verdict in respondent booker s drug case was 210-to-262 months in prison. at the sentencing hearing, the judge found additional facts by a preponderance of the evidence. because these findings mandated a sentence between 360 months and life, the judge gave booker a 30-year sentence instead of the 21-year, 10-month, sentence he could have imposed based on the facts proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. the seventh circuit held that this application of the guidelines conflicted with the apprendi v. new jersey, 530 u. s. 466 , 490, holding that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. relying on blakely v. washington, 542 u. s. ___, the court held that the sentence violated the sixth amendment and instructed the district court either to sentence booker within the sentencing range supported by the jury s findings or to hold a separate sentencing hearing before a jury. in respondent fanfan s case, the maximum sentence authorized by the jury verdict under the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2005 (SC)

Amit Kumar Shaw and anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2005

Reported in : AIR2005SC2209; 2005(4)ALD98(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)458; 2005(2)AWC1348(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1273; 2005(5)BomCR690; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN83; 2005(4)CTC47; JT2005(5)SC20; 2005(2)KLT80; (2005)11SCC403

ar. lakshmanan, j. 1. leave granted.2. these two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2004 passed by the high court at calcutta in c.a.n. no. 2642 of 2004 in s.a.no. 631 of 1993 and in c.a.n. no. 2643 of 2004 in s.a.no. 632 of 1993 whereby the high court dismissed the applications filed by the appellants for substitution of their names, namely, amit kumar shaw and anand kumar shaw as contesting respondents in place and stead of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey, both since deceased and represented by their legal heirs in their place. according to the appellants, the respondents above named had sold the suit property to the appellants, who are the only persons interested in the said suit property.3. the service of notice is complete in both the matters but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents.4. the short facts are as follows:the property in question originally belonged to khetra mohan das and subsequently by way of lease and transfer; the said property ultimately came in the hands of birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey. there were troubles in between the original owner and the said birendra nath dey and smt. kalyani dey and as a result of that, the suit was filed. one fakir mohammad claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the property in question by way of adverse possession. ultimately, both the appeals being title appeal no. 400 of 1989 and title appeal no. 7 of 1990 were allowed by a common judgment and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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