http://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/podcast U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_880/argument Women's Health Center Inc. operated several abortion clinics throughout central Florida, including the Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. In 1992, in response to anti-abortion protesters, a state court prohibited the protesters from physically abusing those entering or exiting the clinic, or otherwise interfering with access to the clinic. About 6 months later, Women's Health Center Inc. expressed a need to broaden the court order. The state court agreed, banning demonstrators from entering a 36-foot buffer- zone around the clinic, making excessive noise, using images visible to patients, approaching patients within a 300-foot radius of the clinic, and protesting within a 300-foot radius of staff residences. Petitioner Judy Madsen and her fellow protesters claimed that these restrictions violated their First Amendment right to free speech, but the Florida Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the court order. Thu, 28 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57972 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_2058/argument None Thu, 28 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58021 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_609/argument None Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58063 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1920/argument None Tue, 26 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58049 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_744/argument None Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57984 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5256/argument None Mon, 25 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58059 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_644/argument 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. Wed, 20 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58045 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_670/argument None Wed, 20 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58075 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_639/argument None Tue, 19 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58041 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_6188/argument None Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58083 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_120/argument None Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58092 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5770/argument None Wed, 30 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57976 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_517/argument In 1989, the New York legislature passed a school districting law that intentionally drew its boundaries in accordance with the boundaries of the Village of Kiryas Joel, a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim who practice a strict form of Judaism. Shortly before the new district commenced operations, the taxpayers and the association of state school boards embarked on a lawsuit claiming that the statute created a school district that limited access only to residents of Kiryas Joel. Wed, 30 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58061 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1949/argument None Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58079 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_376/argument None Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58002 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_6497/argument None Tue, 29 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58004 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1384/argument 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.) Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58011 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_397/argument Following Missouri's imposition of a 1.5% statewide "use tax," the Associated Industries of Missouri - representing Missouri businesses that had to collect the tax and a manufacturing firm that had to pay it - filed suit alleging that the tax violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. Such discrimination was said to result from the fact that the use tax exceeded many in-state localities' sales tax rate. Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58057 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5418/argument None Mon, 28 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58103 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_518/argument 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. Wed, 23 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57960 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_377/argument None Wed, 23 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58118 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_8346/argument None Tue, 22 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58035 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5131/argument None Tue, 22 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58044 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_9093/argument None Tue, 22 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58019 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_445/argument 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. Mon, 21 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58031 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_356/argument None Mon, 21 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58073 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_489/argument None Mon, 21 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58088 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_289/argument None Wed, 02 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57958 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_141/argument On January 28, 1992, in response to the serious financial hardships of Massachusetts dairy farmers, the Commissioner of Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture issued a pricing order. The order required all dealers who sold milk to Massachusetts retailers to make a monthly premium payment to be distributed among in-state dairy farmers. Two Massachusetts milk dealers --West Lynn Creamery and LeComte's Dairy -- sell dairy products in Massachusetts. West Lynn Creamery relies on out-of-state producers; LeComte purchases all of its milk from West Lynn. The dealers filed an action in state court claiming that the order violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The state court rejected their claims; the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed. Wed, 02 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58077 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1988/argument None Tue, 01 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58085 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_263/argument None Tue, 01 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58015 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1812/argument 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. Tue, 01 Mar 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58120 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1956/argument 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. Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57998 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1941/argument None Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58000 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_284/argument None Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57980 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_5209/argument None Mon, 28 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58081 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1856/argument Margaret Gilleo placed a 24-by-36-inch sign calling for peace in the Persian Gulf on her front lawn. The original sign disappeared and a subsequent sign was knocked down. She reported these incidents to the police who advised her that such signs were prohibited in Ladue. She sued the city and the District Court ordered a preliminary injunction. Ladue repealed the law and replaced it with a new one which also banned window signs. Gilleo then placed another anti-war sign in her second-story window and amended her complaint to challenge the new ordinance. Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58090 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1911/argument None Wed, 23 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58071 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_405/argument 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. Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57973 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_8841/argument None Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58033 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1964/argument None Tue, 22 Feb 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57970 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1639/argument None Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58116 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_144/argument None Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58105 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_70/argument In 1989, Oregon Legislature imposed a surcharge on solid waste generated out- of-state and disposed of within the state. The Department of Environmental Quality, determined the amount of the surcharge to be $2.25 per ton, significantly higher than the $0.85 per ton fee charged for in-state waste. Two waste disposal companies —Waste Systems Inc. and Columbia Resource Company (CRC) — disposed of waste generated out-of-state in Oregon. Waste Systems Inc. managed and owned a landfill in Oregon, and CRC transported waste from Washington State to Oregon. The companies challenged the surcharge in the Oregon Court of Appeals, arguing that it breached the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. However, the appellate court upheld the surcharge, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. Tue, 18 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58109 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_8894/argument None Tue, 18 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58026 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_9059/argument None Tue, 18 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58099 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_7247/argument None Wed, 12 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58101 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_44/argument In 1992, Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Sections 4 and 5 of this Act required cable systems to allocate a percentage of their channels to local public broadcast stations, the must-carry rules. The rules limit the cannels available for exclusive control by cable programmers and increase competition for the remaining channels. Wed, 12 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58053 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1479/argument None Tue, 11 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58094 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_180/argument None Tue, 11 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58009 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1662/argument 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. Mon, 10 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 58095 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_8556/argument None Mon, 10 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57986 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_8579/argument None Mon, 10 Jan 1994 13:00:00 +0000 57968 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_780/argument 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. Wed, 08 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58065 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1750/argument After successfully defending against a copyright infringement suit filed against him by Fantasy Inc. (Fantasy), John Fogerty sought to recover the cost of his attorney's fees from Fantasy. Fogerty based his claim on 17 U.S.C. section 505 which states in part that: "the court may award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs." On appeal from an unfavorable district court ruling, the Court of Appeals affirmed as it found that Fogerty did not demonstrate that Fantasy's original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith. Fogerty appealed again, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. Wed, 08 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57988 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1370/argument BFP, a partnership formed by two private investors, bought a home in Newport Beach, CA in 1987. BFP secured the property by obtaining a deed of trust from Imperial Savings Association (Imperial). Imperial owned the property until BFP could pay off the amount borrowed. BFP defaulted on loan repayment and Imperial proceeded to sell the property for $433,000 to settle the loan (foreclosure). Before the title of ownership transferred to the buyer, BFP filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. BFP asked bankruptcy court to nullify the original foreclosure sale because the home was valued at over $725,000. BFP argued that the low sales price constituted a fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. Section 548(a)(2)(A), which guarantees that debtors receive "reasonably equivalent value" for property foreclosed. BFP claimed "reasonably equivalent value" was equal to the market value of the property in question. The bankruptcy court denied BFP's claim, and a District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Tue, 07 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57964 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1402/argument A New York town, Clarkstown, allowed a contractor to construct and operate a waste processing plant within town limits. The revenue from the plant would help compensate the contractor. Clarkstown promised that the plant would receive 120,000 tons of solid waste each year, and permitted the contractor to charge an $81 "tipping fee" for each ton received. To meet the 120,000 ton quota, Clarkstown adopted a "flow control ordinance." The ordinance required that all solid waste flowing into and out of the town pass through the new plant. C & A Carbone, Inc. operated a similar plant within the town. To avoid paying the $81 fee, Carbone trucked processed waste directly to an Indiana landfill. In 1991, a Carbone truck carrying illegal waste crashed and police discovered that Carbone was violating the ordinance. Clarkstown sued Carbone in a New York Supreme Court. Carbone responded by suing Clarkstown in a federal District Court, claiming that the ordinance violated the Commerce Clause by disrupting interstate commerce. The District Court agreed but dissolved its injunction against Clarkstown when the New York Supreme Court ruled in favor of Clarkstown. Tue, 07 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58055 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1546/argument None Mon, 06 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58010 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1500/argument None Mon, 06 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57978 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1550/argument After employee Michael Manson gave a false excuse for being late to work, ABF Freight System, Inc. (ABF) fired him for tardiness. Manson repeated his false excuse while under oath at a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, during which he argued that ABF had fired him in retaliation for his previous union activities. The National Labor Relations Board reversed the judge, ruling that ABF had used Manson's tardiness as a pretext to fire him. The Board reinstated him with backpay. ABF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, claiming that the Board could not reinstate an employee who lied under oath. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the Board could determine whether or not to pardon Manson for giving a false excuse. Wed, 01 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58029 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1450/argument A public hospital fired an obstetrics nurse, Cheryl Churchill, for insubordination after she allegedly complained about her superiors to a nurse trainee during a dinner break in the hospital's obstetrics unit. Churchill claimed that the hospital fired her because she opposed its policy of nurse cross-training and said it was leaving certain units understaffed. Wed, 01 Dec 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57990 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1441/argument None Tue, 30 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57966 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_854/argument None Tue, 30 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58107 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1625/argument 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. Mon, 29 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58098 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_97/argument None Mon, 29 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57996 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_91_1950/argument Robert Miller, a Mississippi resident who had moved north to find work, was injured while working as a seaman for American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Miller returned home to Mississippi, and filed a suit against the company in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana. The suit was filed under the Jones Act, a federal law that allows a seaman to sue his employer in either federal or state court when he suffers personal injury. American Dredging moved to dismiss the case under the doctrine of "forum non conveniens," which allows a court to dismiss a case if it is filed in a place that is unnecessarily and significantly inconvenient to the defendant. The trial court agreed, holding that a Louisiana law making the doctrine of "forum non conveniens" inapplicable in Jones Act cases was superseded by federal maritime law (law that deals with oceanic commerce). An appeals court affirmed the decision, but the Louisiana Supreme Court overturned it, holding that the Louisiana law was not superseded by federal maritime law. Tue, 09 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58114 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1292/argument 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. Tue, 09 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58051 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1510/argument None Mon, 08 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58017 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_74/argument None Mon, 08 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57982 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1223/argument None Mon, 08 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58047 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1482/argument None Wed, 03 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58023 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_6921/argument None Wed, 03 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58013 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_6281/argument None Tue, 02 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58111 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1239/argument Alabama, acting on behalf of T.B. (the mother), sought paternity and child support from J.E.B.(the putative father). A jury found for T.B. In forming the jury, Alabama used its peremptory strikes to eliminate nine of the ten men who were in the jury pool; J.E.B. use a peremptory challenge to strike a tenth man in the pool. Tue, 02 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58039 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_7549/argument None Mon, 01 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58069 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1196/argument None Mon, 01 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58096 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_989/argument None Mon, 01 Nov 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57975 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_757/argument None Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58005 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1168/argument Teresa Harris was sexually harassed by her employer. She filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the harassment created an "abusive work environment" in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The employer countered that the harassment had not been severe enough to seriously affect her psychologically or impair her ability to work, and that it therefore did not create an abusive work environment under the meaning of Title VII. The district court agreed, stating that the decision was a "close case" but that the harassment had not been severe enough to create an abusive work environment in violation of the Act. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed the district court's decision. Wed, 13 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57994 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1123/argument None Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57992 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1074/argument None Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58087 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_833/argument Illinois police obtained a warrant to arrest Kevin Albright after he was seen selling a substance which look liked an illegal drug. Upon hearing of the warrant, Albright surrendered to police detective Roger Oliver. A trial court dismissed the charge because it did not state an offense under Illinois law. Albright claimed that Oliver violated his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right by prosecuting him without probable cause. He filed suit against Oliver under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides relief to those deprived of civil rights. The federal District Court dismissed the suit because it did not state a claim under Section 1983. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that relief provided by Section 1983 for prosecution without probable cause is valid only if the prosecution caused a consequence such as loss of employment or incarceration. Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58027 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_91_1523/argument 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. Wed, 06 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58037 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1180/argument None Wed, 06 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58025 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_896/argument None Tue, 05 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 57962 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_903/argument None Tue, 05 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58067 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_91_2012/argument None Mon, 04 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58043 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_741/argument None Mon, 04 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58007 at http://www.oyez.org http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_519/argument None Mon, 04 Oct 1993 13:00:00 +0000 58113 at http://www.oyez.org