The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Civil Procedure Decisions http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/civil-procedure/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us Allegheny County v. Mashuda Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_347/ Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_2147/ Askew v. Hargrave <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_573/ Best v. Humboldt Mining Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_52/ California v. Grace Brethren Church <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_31/ Carey v. Sugar <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_858/ Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Fslic <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_996/ Colorado River Water Cons. Dist. v. U.S. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_940/ County Of Imperial v. Munoz <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1003/ Darby v. Cisneros, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_91_2045/ Daubert Et Ux., Individually And As Guardians Ad Litem For Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_102/ Deakins v. Monaghan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_890/ Doud v. Hodge <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1955/1955_129/ England v. Medical Examiners <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_7/ Fair Assessment In Real Estate Assn. v. Mcnary <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_427/ Franchise Tax Board Of California v. Alcan Aluminium <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1400/ Gibson v. Berryhill <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_653/ Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1566/ Grubbs v. General Electric Credit Corp. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_71_257/ Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff <p>Did the Land Reform Act of 1967 violate the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment?</p><p>In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the Public Use Clause did not preclude Hawaii from taking title in real property, with just compensation, for the purpose of reducing the concentration of ownership. Noting that Hawaii's statute was rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court argued that "debates over the wisdom of takings" were best carried out by legislatures, not by federal courts. The Court also held that the fact that the property taken by eminent domain was transferred to private beneficiaries did not condemn the law to having a solely private purpose.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_141/ Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Laplante <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1589/ Lehman Brothers v. Schein <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_73_439/ Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_26/ Louisiana P. & L. Co. v. Thibodaux City <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_398/ Marrese v. American Academy Of Ortho. Surgeons <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1452/ Martin v. Creasy <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1958/1958_157/ Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Epstein <p>May a federal court refuse to grant full faith and credit to a state-court judgment approving a class-action settlement simply because the settlement releases claims within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts?</p><p>No. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that, absent a partial repeal of the Full Faith and Credit Act by another federal statute, a federal court must give the judgment the same effect that it would have in the courts of the State in which it was rendered. Writing for the court, Justice Thomas said the federal Full Faith and Credit Act "is generally applicable in cases in which the state-court judgment at issue incorporates a class-action settlement releasing claims solely within the jurisdiction of the federal courts." Justice John Paul Stevens penned an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion, and was joined in part by Justice David H. Souter.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1809/ Mccarthy v. Madigan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_6861/ Mcneil v. United States <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_6033/ Metlakatla Indians v. Egan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1959/1959_326/ Moore v. Sims <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_78_6/ New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. New Orleans <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_348/ Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1616/ Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1798/ Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance <p>Is an abstention-based remand order appealable as a final order? Can the abstention doctrine recognized in Burford v. Sun Oil Co. be applied in a suit for damages?</p><p>Yes and no. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that an abstention-based remand order is appealable because the "remand order here falls within that narrow class of collateral orders that are immediately appealable." Further, the Court held that the "federal courts have the power to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles only where the relief sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary," and because "this was a damages action, the District Court's remand order was an unwarranted application of the Burford doctrine." Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy wrote concurring opinions.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_244/ Reetz v. Bozanich <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_185/ Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana <p>May removal to federal court be predicated on a defendant's assertion that a prior federal judgment has disposed of an entire matter and thus bars plaintiffs from later pursuing a state-law-based case?</p><p>No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a defense claim of preclusion by reason of a prior federal judgment provides no basis for removal and emphasized that the claim is properly made in state proceedings. Differing the case from a removable case governed by a preemptive federal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the "prior federal judgment does not transform the plaintiff's state-law claims into federal claims but rather extinguishes them altogether."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1971/ Rosewell v. Lasalle National Bank <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1157/ Trainor v. Hernandez <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1407/ Tully v. Griffin, Inc. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_831/ United Gas Co. v. Ideal Cement Co. <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1961/1961_61/ Willingham v. Morgan <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_228/