The Oyez Project: 1993 Term

ABF Freight System, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (No. 92-1550)

No details yet.

Albright v. Oliver (No. 92-833)

No details yet.

American Dredging v. Miller (No. 91-1950)

No details yet.

Associated Industries of Missouri v. Lohman (No. 93-397)

No details yet.

Barclays Bank Plc v. Franchise Tax Board Of California (No. 92-1384)

Granderson, convicted for mail destruction, faced potential imprisonment of 0-6 months under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court sentenced him to five years of probation. When Granderson tested positive for cocaine, the court resentenced him under section 3565 of the U.S. Code. The section says that if a person serving a sentence of probation possesses illegal drugs, "the court shall revoke the sentence of probation and sentence the defendant to not less than one third of the original sentence." The district court interpreted the phrase "original sentence" to refer to the term of probation imposed (60 months), rather than the 0-6 month imprisonment range set by the Guidelines. The court resentenced Granderson to 20 months' imprisonment.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Granderson's new sentence. Citing "lenity," the court agreed with Granderson that "original sentence" referred to the potential imprisonment range under the Guidelines, not to the actual probation sentence.

Beecham v. United States (No. 93-445)

No details yet.

BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation, As Receiver Of Imperial Federal Savings Association (No. 92-1370)

A Virginia trial court warned the United Mine Workers of America union to refrain from certain unlawful strike-related activities. Over the course of the next few months, finding that the union had disregarded the warning more than 400 times, the court fined them more than $64 million in what it termed civil fines, payable to the state of Virginia. After the strike was settled the court refused to cancel the fines, despite the fact that the strike settlement had called for their cancellation. The Court ruled that the fines were payable to the state, not the mining company, and that the settlement could not therefore cancel them. The Virginia Court of Appeals reversed, canceling the fines in accordance with the settlement agreement, but on further appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia reinstated the fines. It held that the union had been warned in advance and could have avoided the fines, meaning that it controlled its own destiny. The fines were therefore not criminal (imposing criminal fines would have required a jury trial) but instead civil, as the trial court had argued, because they were intended to maintain order and respect for the courts by encouraging compliance with a court order.

Board of Educ.Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet (No. 93-517)

No details yet.

Boca Grande Club, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Company, Inc. (No. 93-180)

No details yet.

C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Town Of Clarkstown, New York (No. 92-1402)

Three days after his arrest by local police on state narcotics charges, Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez confessed to the Secret Service that federal reserve notes found in his home were counterfeit. When he was subsequently charged with the federal offense of possession of counterfeit currency, Alvarez defended himself by claiming that the delay between his arrest on state charges and his presentment on the federal charge rendered his confession inadmissible. Alvarez cited 18 U.S.C. Section 3501(c), which pronounced separate charge-based confessions inadmissible if obtained after the first six hours of detention. On appeal from a reversal of a district court's decision to uphold the confession, the Supreme Court granted the United States certiorari.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (No. 92-1292)

No details yet.

Caspari, Superintendent, Missouri Eastern Correctional Center v. Bohlen (No. 92-1500)

No details yet.

Cavanaugh v. Roller (No. 92-1510)

No details yet.

Central Bank Of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank Of Denver, N. A. (No. 92-854)

No details yet.

City Of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund (No. 92-1639)

No details yet.

Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall (No. 92-1956)

No details yet.

Custis v. United States (No. 93-5209)

No details yet.

Dalton, Secretary Of The Navy v. Specter (No. 93-289)

No details yet.

Davis v. United States (No. 92-1949)

No details yet.

Department Of Revenue Of Montana v. Kurth Ranch (No. 93-144)

No details yet.

Department Of Revenue Of Oregon v. Acf Industries, Inc. (No. 92-74)

No details yet.

Department Of Taxation And Finance Of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc. (No. 93-377)

No details yet.

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc. (No. 93-405)

No details yet.

Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department Of Labor v. Greenwich Collieries (No. 93-744)

No details yet.

Dolan v. City of Tigard (No. 93-518)

No details yet.

Elder v. Holloway (No. 92-8579)

No details yet.

Farmer v. Brennan, Warden (No. 92-7247)

No details yet.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Meyer (No. 92-741)

No details yet.

Florence County School District Four v. Carter (No. 91-1523)

After Shannon Carter was classified as a learning disabled student, school officials met with her parents to formulate an individualized education program (IEP) as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Unhappy with the IEP developed by the school district, Shannon's parents challenged its appropriateness and enrolled her in a private school while their challenge was pending.

When state and local educational authorities concluded that the IEP was adequate, Shannon's parents sued in Federal District Court, claiming the school district had failed to provide a "free appropriate public education" as required by IDEA and demanding reimbursement for Shannon's education at the private school. The school district argued that the private school did not meet all the requirements of IDEA and therefore did not meet the "appropriate" standard. Because of it was not "appropriate," the school district argued, reimbursement was not required.

The District Court and the Fourth Circuit of Appeals both ruled against the school district, requiring it to reimburse Shannon's parents.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. (No. 92-1750)

No details yet.

Hagen v. Utah (No. 92-6281)

No details yet.

Harris v. Forklift Sys. (No. 92-1168)

Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. sued 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that 2 Live Crew's song "Pretty Woman" infringed Acuff-Rose's copyright in Roy Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman." The District Court granted summary judgment for 2 Live Crew, holding that its song was a parody that made fair use of the original song. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair.

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris (No. 92-2058)

After Digital Equipment Corporation and Desktop Direct, Inc. arrived at a settlement agreement in a trademark infringement suit, the federal District Court dismissed the case. Several months later, after Desktop claimed that Digital had misrepresented important facts during the settlement negotiations, the Court reopened the case and cancelled the agreement. Digital appealed, but the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear the case, holding that it was not immediately appealable under the guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463. The court held that the "right not to go to trial" claimed by Digital under the settlement was not sufficiently important to merit an immediate appeal and was different from immunity rooted in an explicit statutory or constitutional provision or compelling public policy rationale, the denial of which had been held immediately appealable.

Heck v. Humphrey (No. 93-6188)

No details yet.

Holder, Individually And In His Official Capacity As County Commissioner For Bleckley County, Georgia v. Hall (No. 91-2012)

No details yet.

Honda v. Oberg (No. 93-644)

No details yet.

Howlett v. Birkdale Shipping Co., S. A. (No. 93-670)

No details yet.

Ibanez v. Florida Department Of Business And Professional Regulation, Board Of Accountancy (No. 93-639)

No details yet.

Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp. (No. 92-1123)

No details yet.

J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B. (No. 92-1239)

No details yet.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Harris Trust And Savings Bank, As Trustee Of The Sperry Master Retirement Trust No.2 (No. 92-1074)

No details yet.

Johnson, Speaker Of The Florida House Of Representatives v. De Grandy (No. 92-519)

Lenard Ray Beecham was convicted in Federal District Court of violating 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which makes it illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. Beecham argued that according to the statute's exemption clause ("Any conviction...for which a person...has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction...") he was no longer a convicted felon because Tennessee had restored his civil rights. Prosecutors pointed to the statute's "choice of law clause," which states that "What constitutes a conviction...shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." They argued that because Beecham's prior conviction was under federal law, no state could restore his right to possess a firearm.

The District Court ruled that a state could restore civil rights barred by a federal conviction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision. The Fourth Circuit's rule conflicted with those of the Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, which held that the since the exemption clause applied to "any conviction," it also permitted states to undo restrictions caused by federal convictions.

Key Tronic Corp. v. United States (No. 93-376)

No details yet.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company Of America (No. 93-263)

No details yet.

Ladue v. Gilleo (No. 92-1856)

No details yet.

Landgraf v. Usi Film Products (No. 92-757)

No details yet.

Liteky v. United States (No. 92-6921)

Florence Dolan wanted a permit from the City of Tigard to expand her store and pave her parking lot. The city agreed to grant her permit on the condition that she dedicate part of her land for (1) a greenway along a nearby creek to help alleviate runoff from the pavement, and (2) a pedestrian/bicycle path to relieve traffic congestion from the city's growing business district.

Livadas v. Bradshaw, California Labor Commissioner (No. 92-1920)

No details yet.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (No. 93-880)

No details yet.

McDermott, Inc. v. Amclyde (No. 92-1479)

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) employee James Gottshall observed a fellow worker, Richard Johns, die of a heart attack while on duty. Gottshall's boss postponed seeking medical assistance during Johns' heart attack, insisted that the crew keep working, and left the body at the work site for the remainder of the work day. Shortly after Johns's death, Gottshall was admitted to a psychiatric institution. Gottshall sued Conrail under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) for exposing him to distressing circumstances which he claimed caused his illness. A District Court rejected the suit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and found that Gottshall's injuries were "genuine and severe." The Third Circuit contrasted the liberal injury recovery policy embodied in FELA over the more limited injury relief recovery policy embodied in common law standards, which often applied harsh tests to prove employee injury.

Conrail employee Alan Carlisle also filed a FELA action against Conrail. He claimed that Conrail subjected him to unsafe working conditions, which caused him stress and lead to health problems. Because the stress related health problems were foreseeable to Conrail, the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment for Carlisle.

Mcfarland v. Scott, Director, Texas Department Of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division (No. 93-6497)

No details yet.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. (No. 93-356)

No details yet.

Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. (No. 93-609)

No details yet.

National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care & Retirement Corporation Of America (No. 92-1964)

No details yet.

National Organization for Women (NOW) v. Scheidler (No. 92-780)

No details yet.

Nichols v. United States (No. 92-8556)

No details yet.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County Of Kent, Michigan (No. 92-97)

No details yet.

O'Melveny & Myers v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Receiver For American Diversified Savings Bank (No. 93-489)

No details yet.

Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department Of Environmental Quality Of The State Of Oregon (No. 93-70)

No details yet.

Posters 'N' Things, Ltd. v. United States (No. 92-903)

No details yet.

Powell v. Nevada (No. 92-8841)

No details yet.

PUD No. 1 Of Jefferson County v. Washington Department Of Ecology (No. 92-1911)

No details yet.

Ratzlaf Et Ux. v. United States (No. 92-1196)

No details yet.

Reed v. Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison (No. 93-5418)

No details yet.

Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. (No. 92-938)

No details yet.

Romano v. Oklahoma (No. 92-9093)

No details yet.

Schiro v. Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison (No. 92-7549)

Karl Oberg was driving an all-terrain vehicle when it overturned, causing him severe, permanent injuries. The jury in his trial assessed almost $1 million in compensatory damages, and an additional $5 million in punitive damages. A 1910 amendment to the Oregon state constitution prohibited judicial review of jury awards.

Security Services, Inc. v. Kmart Corp. (No. 93-284)

No details yet.

Shannon v. United States (No. 92-8346)

No details yet.

Simmons v. South Carolina (No. 92-9059)

No details yet.

Stansbury v. California (No. 93-5770)

No details yet.

Staples v. United States (No. 92-1441)

No details yet.

Tennessee v. Middlebrooks (No. 92-989)

No details yet.

Thomas Jefferson University, Dba Thomas Jefferson University Hospital v. Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services (No. 93-120)

No details yet.

Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, Secretary Of Labor (No. 92-896)

No details yet.

Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. Brown (No. 92-1988)

No details yet.

Tuilaepa v. California (No. 93-5131)

No details yet.

Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (No. 93-44)

No details yet.

United Mineworkers of America v. Bagwell (No. 92-1625)

The National Organization for Women (NOW) sued a coalition of anti-abortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. N.O.W. alleged that Scheidler and other anti-abortion protesters were members in a nationwide conspiracy to obstruct women's access to abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity including the actual or implied threat of violence. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the voluntary contributions are not proceeds of racketeering and that a "racketeering enterprise" must have an economic motive, a fact that NOW could not demonstrate. The Court of Appeals affirmed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

United States Department Of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (No. 92-1223)

No details yet.

United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez (No. 92-1812)

No details yet.

United States v. Carlton (No. 92-1941)

No details yet.

United States v. Granderson (No. 92-1662)

No details yet.

United States v. Irvine (No. 92-1546)

No details yet.

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (No. 92-1180)

California used a "worldwide combined reporting" method to determine tax liability for multinational corporations operating inside the state. Under this method, the multinational's income was taxed in proportion to the average percentage of worldwide payroll, property, and sales located inside the state. Barclays Bank of California (Barcal) was wholly owned by a multinational corporation, Barclays Bank International Limited (BBI). Barcal did not include financial data for BBI in its 1977 tax filings. The California Franchise Tax Board (Tax Board) determined that Barcal misrepresented the proportion of income subject to taxation, causing a tax deficiency of over one hundred thousand dollars. Barcal and BBI paid, but then sued for the amount paid, complaining that the cost to provide BBI's worldwide financial data was disproportionately large considering that Barcal operated largely independently of BBI and BBI operated largely outside of California. Barcal and BBI contended that this violated the Commerce Clause-derived anti-discrimination requirement, which prevents States from imposing disproportionately large tax compliance burdens upon corporations. The Tax Board allowed BBI to make a "reasonable approximation" of financial data to minimize costs, but BBI claimed that this action violated Due Process by admitting financial data that was possibly inaccurate.

The California Supreme Court found no constitutional violation and remanded the case to a California Court of Appeals, which also did not find the burden disproportionate. Barcal and BBI also contended that the "worldwide combined reporting" method risked double taxation by the state and the federal government. Additionally, The "worldwide combined reporting" method deviated from taxing methods employed by other states, thus transgressing the federal government's interest in providing uniform standards for taxing foreign commerce. (The case was consolidated with Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Franchise Tax Board Of California.)

Victor v. Nebraska (No. 92-8894)

No details yet.

Waters v. Churchill (No. 92-1450)

No details yet.

Weiss v. United States (No. 92-1482)

No details yet.

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, Commissioner Of Massachusetts Depart Ment Of Food And Agriculture (No. 93-141)

No details yet.

Williamson v. United States (No. 93-5256)

No details yet.