<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Rehnquist: Miscellaneous</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/tags/rehnquist_miscellaneous/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>BMW v. Gore</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;After purchasing a new vehicle from an authorized Alabama BMW dealership, Ira Gore, Jr. discovered that his new vehicle had been repainted. He sued BMW's American distributor (BMW), alleging that it committed fraud by failing to inform him that his car had been repainted. The Alabama Circuit Court entered judgment, following a jury verdict, awarding Gore $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. On appeal from the trial judge's denial of BMW's post-trial petition to set aside the punitive damages as 'grossly excessive,' the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that the punitive damages were not so excessive as to violate BMW's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Due to a jury calculation error, however, the Alabama Supreme Court reduced Gore's punitive damage award to $2 million. BMW appealed to the Supreme Court.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_896/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Dolan v. City of Tigard</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_93_518/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Eldred v. Ashcroft</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Under the Copyright and Patent Clause of the Constitution, Article 1, section 8, "Congress shall have Power...to promote the Progress of Science...by securing [to Authors] for limited Times...the exclusive Right to their...Writings." In the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), Congress enlarged the duration of copyrights by 20 years, making copyrights now run from creation until 70 years after the author's death. Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have entered the public domain, argued that the CTEA violates both the Copyright Clause's "limited Times" prescription and the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. They claimed Congress cannot extend the copyright term for published works with existing copyrights. The District Court and the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_618/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Kelo v. City of New London</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Kelo Susette and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_108/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The state appealed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_91_453/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>MGM Studios v. Grokster</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Grokster and other companies distributed free software that allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks. In such networks, users can share digital files directly between their computers, without the use of a central server. Users employed the software primarily to download copyrighted files, file-sharing which the software companies knew about and encouraged. The companies profited from advertising revenue, since they streamed ads to the software users. A group of movie studios and other copyright holders sued and alleged that Grokster and the other companies violated the Copyright Act by intentionally distributing software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works. The district court ruled for Grokster, reasoning that the software distribution companies were not liable for copyright violations stemming from their software, which could have been used lawfully. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_480/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Nollan v. California Coastal Commission</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;The California Coastal Commission required owners of beachfront property wishing to obtain a building permit to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_86_133/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Saenz v. Roe</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), states receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) can pay the benefit amount of another State's TANF program to residents who have lived in the State for less than 12 months. When California announced it would enforce this option, Brenda Roe brought this class action, on behalf of other first year residents, challenging the constitutionality of the durational residency requirement. On appeal from successive adverse rulings in the lower courts, the Supreme Court granted Rita Saenz, the Director of California's Department of Social Services, certiorari.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_97/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
