The Oyez Project: 1994 Term http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/ U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us Adarand Constructors v. Pena (No. 93-1841) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841/ Allied-Bruce Terminix Co. v. Dobson (No. 93-1001) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1001/ American Airlines v. Wolens (No. 93-1286) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1286/ Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services v. Green (No. 94-197) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_197/ Anderson, Director, California Department Of Social Services (No. 93-1883) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1883/ Arizona v. Evans (No. 93-1660) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1660/ Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, Dba Deebees (No. 92-2038) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_92_2038/ Babbitt, Secretary Of Interior v. Sweet Home Chapter Of Communities For A Great Oregon (No. 94-859) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_859/ Brown, Secretary Of Veterans Affairs v. Gardner (No. 93-1128) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1128/ California Department Of Corrections v. Morales (No. 93-1462) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1462/ Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette (No. 94-780) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_780/ Celotex Corp. v. Edwards Et ux. (No. 93-1504) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1504/ Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis (No. 94-325) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_325/ City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (No. 94-23) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_23/ Commissioner Of Internal Revenue v. Schleier (No. 94-500) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_500/ Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen (No. 93-1935) <p>Police officers found Houston Jones, a diabetic, on the street while he was having an insulin seizure. The officers arrested Jones because he appeared drunk. Later, Jones found himself with several broken ribs. Jones brought a constitutional tort action against the officers, claiming that they used excessive force when they arrested him and that they beat him at the police station. As government officials, the officers were entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense. Three of the officers moved for summary judgment arguing that he could point to no evidence that these three had beaten him or had been present during beatings. Holding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence supporting Jones's theory of the case, the District Court denied the motion. The officers sought an immediate appeal, arguing that the denial was wrong because the evidence in the pretrial record was not sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for trial. The Court of Appeals held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1935/ Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department Of Labor v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. (No. 93-1783) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1783/ Federal Election Commission v. Nra Political Victory Fund (No. 93-1151) <p>In consolidated state-court class actions brought in Illinois, participants in American Airlines' frequent flyer program, AAdvantage, challenged American's retroactive changes in program terms and conditions. Specially, the participants alleged that American's imposition of capacity controls and blackout dates to mileage credits they had previously accumulated violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and constituted a breach of contract. American responded that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) preempted the claim. The ADA prohibits States from "enacting or enforcing any law...relating to [air carrier] rates, routes, or services." The Illinois Supreme Court ruled to allow the breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act monetary relief claims to survive. After the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, American petitioned for certiorari.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1151/ First Options v. Kaplan (No. 94-560) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_560/ Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc. (No. 94-226) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_226/ Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick (No. 94-286) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_286/ Garlotte v. Fordice, Governor Of Mississippi (No. 94-6790) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_6790/ Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., Fka Alloyd Holdings, Inc. (No. 93-404) <p>After the October 1987 stock market crash, First Options of Chicago, Inc., a firm that clears stock trades on the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, demanded that Manuel Kaplan, his wife, and his wholly owned investment company, MK Investments, Inc. (MKI) immediately pay the entire MKI debt. When First Options' demands for payment went unsatisfied, it sought arbitration by a panel of the Philadelphia Stock Exchange based on workout agreements, which governed the working out of debts owned by Kaplan, his wife, and MKI. MKI, which had signed the only workout document containing an arbitration agreement, submitted to arbitration, but the Kaplans, who had not signed that document, filed objections with the panel. The Kaplans argued that their disagreement with First Options not was arbitrable. After deciding that they had the power to rule on the dispute's merits, the arbitrators ruled in First Options' favor. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the award, finding that the dispute was not arbitrable. The appellate court concluded that courts should independently decide whether an arbitration panel has jurisdiction over a dispute, and that it would apply ordinary standards of review when considering the District Court's denial of a motion to vacate the arbitration award.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_404/ Gutierrez De Martinez v. Lamagno (No. 94-167) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_167/ Harris v. Alabama (No. 93-7659) <p>After a ship owned by the Cement Division of National Gypsum Co. sank in a winter storm while berthed in a slip owned by Milwaukee, National Gypsum brought an admiralty suit for damages, alleging that the city had negligently breached its duty as a wharfinger. The city denied fault and filed a counterclaim for damage to its dock, alleging that National Gypsum was negligent in leaving the ship virtually unmanned. The District Court found that both parties were negligent, apportioned liability primarily to National Gypsum, and entered a partial judgment for the stipulated amount of National Gypsum's damages, excluding prejudgment interest. The court held that the fact that National Gypsum's loss was primarily attributable to its own negligence and the existence of a genuine dispute over the City's liability were special circumstances justifying a departure from the general rule that prejudgment interest should be awarded in maritime collision cases. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that mutual fault cannot provide a basis for denying prejudgment interest.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_7659/ Heintz v. Jenkins (No. 94-367) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_367/ Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (No. 93-1197) <p>On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1197/ Hubbard v. United States (No. 94-172) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_172/ Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association (No. 94-749) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_749/ Interstate Commerce Commission v. Transcon Lines (No. 93-1318) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1318/ Jerome B. Grubart Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock (No. 93-762) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_762/ Johnson v. Jones (No. 94-455) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_455/ Kansas v. Colorado (No. 105 ORIG) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_105_orig/ Kimberlin v. Quinlan 515 U.S. 321 (No. 93-2068) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_2068/ Kyles v. Whitley, Warden (No. 93-7927) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_7927/ Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (No. 93-1525) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1525/ Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc. (No. 94-18) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_18/ McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (No. 93-986) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_986/ Mckennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (No. 93-1543) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1543/ Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo (No. 94-820) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_820/ Miller v. Johnson (No. 94-631) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_631/ Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. (No. 93-768) <p>John Rambo received a disability award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) for an injury he sustained while working for the Metropolitan Stevedore Company as a longshore frontman. Afterwards, Rambo acquired new skills and obtained longshore work as a crane operator, earning more than three times his preinjury earnings, though his disabled physical condition remained unchanged. Metropolitan filed to modify Rambo's disability award under the LHWCA on the ground that there had been a change in conditions such that Rambo was no longer disabled. An Administrative Law judge terminated Rambo's benefits. The Benefits Review Board affirmed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the LHWCA authorizes modification only where there has been a change in an employee's physical condition.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_768/ Milwaukee v. Cement Div., National Gypsum Co. (No. 94-788) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_788/ Missouri v. Jenkins (No. 93-1823) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1823/ National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission (No. 94-688) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_688/ Nationsbank Of North Carolina, N. A. v. Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. (No. 93-1612) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1612/ Nebraska Department Of Revenue v. Loewenstein (No. 93-823) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_823/ Nebraska v. Wyoming (No. 108 ORIG) <p>Asgrow Seed Company (Asgrow) held two Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) certificates protecting different varieties of soybean seed. These PVPA certificates act like patents in order to promote research on new varieties of plants and to protect the owners of seed varieties from unauthorized sales. However, there is an exemption for farmers who sell seed to other farmers whose primary occupation is growing crops for sale. In 1990, Winterboer planted and harvested 265 acres of land with two Asgrow soybean varieties. He then sold enough to plant 10,000 acres to other farmers for use as seed. Asgrow claimed that the PVPA prohibits anyone from selling for seed more than would be needed to replant his own fields - an amount greatly exceeded by Winterboer's sales. Winterboer argued that the exemptions in the statute protect sales of unlimited amounts of seed as long as both seller and buyer grow crops primarily for "other than reproductive purposes." The District Court ruled in favor of Asgrow, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and denied Asgrow's petition for rehearing.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_108_orig/ New York State Conference Of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Insurance Co. (No. 93-1408) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1408/ North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas (No. 94-834) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_834/ O'neal v. Mcaninch, Warden (No. 93-7407) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_7407/ Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation (No. 94-771) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_771/ Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Jefferson Lines, Inc. (No. 93-1677) <p>Went For It, Inc., (a lawyer referral service) and John T. Blakely (a Florida attorney) were sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives who had been injured in an accident. According to Florida Bar rules, such direct and targeted mailings are prohibited for thirty days following an accident or disaster.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1677/ Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc. (No. 93-1121) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1121/ Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc. (No. 93-1577) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1577/ Reich v. Collins, Revenue Commissioner Of Georgia (No. 93-908) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_908/ Reno, Attorney General v. Koray (No. 94-790) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_790/ Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde (No. 94-3) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_3/ Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (No. 94-329) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_329/ Rubin, Secretary Of The Treasury v. Coors Brewing Co. (No. 93-1631) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1631/ Ryder v. United States (No. 94-431) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_431/ Sandin, Unit Team Manager, Halawa Correctional Facility v. Conner (No. 93-1911) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1911/ Schlup v. Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center (No. 93-7901) <p>The Endangered Species Act requires that no person "take" an endangered or threatened species. The Act defines take as "harass, harm, pursue," "wound," or "kill." The Secretary of the Interior further characterizes "harm" as including "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." Several persons within forestry industries sued the Secretary, asserting that Congress did not intend for the regulation to include changes in habitat. The District Court found for the Secretary of the Interior.</p><p>The Court of Appeals reversed on the basis of noscitur a sociis, which means that the meaning of words is determined by the words around it. Thus, "harm" could only include actions applying direct force to the animal.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_7901/ Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital (No. 93-1251) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1251/ Shalala, Secretary Of Health And Human Services v. Whitecotton (No. 94-372) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_372/ Stone v. Immigration And Naturalization Service (No. 93-1199) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1199/ Swint v. Chambers County Commission (No. 93-1636) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1636/ Tome v. United States (No. 93-6892) <p>In 1992, Sharlene Wilson sold illicit narcotics to undercover agents of the Arkansas state police. Police officers then applied for and obtained warrants to search Ms. Wilson's home and to arrest her. When the police arrived, they found the main door to Ms. Wilson's house open. The officers opened the unlocked screen door and walked in, identified themselves as police officers, and said that they had a warrant. Ms. Wilson's attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search, claiming it was invalid on the grounds that the officers had failed to "knock and announce" before entering.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_6892/ U. S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership (No. 93-714) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_714/ U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (No. 93-1456) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1456/ United States v. Aguilar (No. 94-270) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_270/ United States v. Gaudin (No. 94-514) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_514/ United States v. Hays (No. 94-558) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_558/ United States v. Lopez (No. 93-1260) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1260/ United States v. Mezzanatto (No. 93-1340) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1340/ United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (No. 93-1170) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1170/ United States v. Robertson (No. 94-251) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_251/ United States v. Shabani (No. 93-981) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_981/ United States v. Williams (No. 94-395) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_395/ United States v. X-Citement Video (No. 93-723) <p>Between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_723/ Vernonia School District v. Acton (No. 94-590) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590/ Vimar Seguros Y Reaseguros, S. A. v. M/V Sky Reefer (No. 94-623) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_623/ Wilson v. Arkansas (No. 94-5707) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_5707/ Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. (No. 94-562) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_562/ Witte v. United States (No. 94-6187) <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_6187/