Cases by Issue - Review of Non-Final Order

Will v. Hallock

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-1332

Petitioner

Richard Will, et al.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Susan Hallock, et al.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Decided By

Roberts Court (2005-2006)

Opinion

546 U.S. ___ (2006)

Granted

Monday, June 6, 2005

Argued

Monday, November 28, 2005

Decided

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Advocates

Allison M. Zieve (argued the cause for Respondents)

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier (argued the cause for Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

U.S. Customs Service agents investigating a child pornography website raided Susan and Richard Hallock's residence and seized several computers. The Hallocks were cleared of any guilt, but the computers were damaged beyond repair. Susan Hallock originally sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government's sovereign immunity in certain cases. The District Court dismissed that case for lack of jurisdiction, because the FTCA's waiver has an exception for claims arising from the detention of goods by customs. Hallock then sued Will and the other customs agents as individuals. The agents made a motion for dismissal under a provision of the FTCA that bars suits where a judgment on the claim has already been entered. The District Court denied the motion, accepting Hallock's argument that the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction did not constitute a final judgment. Although the trial had not yet concluded, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the agents' appeal of the District Court's ruling on the motion and affirmed the District Court, ruling that since Hallock had not properly brought a claim in the original suit, no judgment had been entered. The Circuit Court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the collateral order doctrine, under which some decisions of lower courts other than final judgments can be appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of the motion to dismiss, but instructed the parties to argue the question of the Circuit Court's authority to hear the appeal.

Question

1) If a claim under the FTCA is dismissed on the grounds that it is covered by one of the Act's exceptions to the waiver of sovereign immunity, is the dismissal a final judgment that bars a subsequent suit against the individual federal employees who were involved? 2) Did the Circuit Court have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to hear an appeal of the District Court's order?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Will, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

Unanswered, and no. In a unanimous opinion, the Court ruled that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Writing for the Court, Justice David Souter stressed the narrow scope of the doctrine. The Court reiterated that only orders that cannot be "effectively" reviewed after a final judgment can be appealed before the close of the trial. Essential to this determination is the importance of the interest at stake. In this case, the Court ruled that the agents' interest in appealing the District Court's order had no "greater importance than the typical defense of claim preclusion" and it therefore warranted "no immediate appeal of right as a collateral order."

Johnson v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

03-6539

Petitioner

Jay Shawn Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

541 U.S. 428 (2004)

Granted

Monday, December 1, 2003

Argued

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Decided

Monday, May 3, 2004

Advocates

Stephen B. Bedrick (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Seth K. Schalit (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Jay Shawn Johnson, on trial in California for murder, objected to the district attorney's use of peremptory challenges to eliminate all three black prospective jurors. Johnson argued the eliminations were based on race. The judge denied Johnson's motions and held that Johnson had failed to show a "strong likelihood" that the dismissals were race-based. The judge relied on People v. Wheeler, the 1978 case in which the California Supreme Court ruled that to establish a prima facie case of racial bias in peremptory challenges, the objector had to show "strong likelihood" that the challenges were race- based. The jury found Johnson guilty of second-degree murder.

Johnson appealed and argued that the "strong likelihood" standard in Wheeler was at odds with the 'reasonable inference" standard the U.S. Supreme Court set in Batson v. Kentucky (1986). The appeals court agreed and reversed Johnson's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed and ruled that the two standards were the same.

Question

In order to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), must the objector show that it is more likely than not that the other party's peremptory challenges were based on impermissible group bias?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

In a per curiam opinion, the Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

Pierce County v. Guillen

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

01-1229

Petitioner

Pierce County

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Guillen

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

537 U.S. 129 (2003)

Argued

Monday, November 4, 2002

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

Advocates

Paul D. Clement (Department of Justice, argued the cause as intervenor)

Salvador A. Mungia (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Daniel R. Hamilton (Tacoma, Washington, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

The Hazard Elimination Program provides state governments with funding to improve the most dangerous sections of their roads. To be eligible for funding, a state must undertake a thorough evaluation of its public roads. This led to concerns that the absence of confidentiality would increase the liability risk for accidents that took place at hazardous locations before improvements could be made. Ultimately, Congress provided that materials "compiled or collected" for purposes of the program "shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding." In 1996, Ignacio Guillen's wife died in an automobile accident in a Pierce County, Washington intersection. While Washington had previously been denied funding for the intersection where the accident occurred, its second request was granted after the accident. Guillen first sought information on the intersection and then asserted that the state had been negligent in failing to install proper traffic controls. Washington sought to protect itself under the Program. The Washington Supreme Court held that the Program exceeded Congress's power under the Constitution.

Question

Does the Hazard Elimination Program exceed Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Pierce County, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 23 U.S.C. 409

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Clarence Thomas, the Court held that both the original program and its subsequent amendments fall within Congress's Commerce Clause power to "'regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce'" and "'to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.'" The Court concluded that, because Congress could reasonably believe that adopting a measure eliminating an unforeseen side effect of the Program's information-gathering requirement would result in greater safety on the nation's roads, the legislation was aimed at improving safety in the channels of commerce and increasing protections for the instrumentalities of interstate commerce.

Florida v. Thomas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

00-391

Petitioner

Florida

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thomas

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

532 U.S. 774 (2001)

Argued

Wednesday, April 25, 2001

Decided

Monday, June 4, 2001

Advocates

Robert J. Krauss (Tampa, Florida, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Cynthia J. Dodge (Bartow, Florida, argued the cause for the respondent)

Gregory G. Garre (Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

While officers were investigating marijuana sales at Florida home, Robert Thomas drove up to the house. An officer asked Thomas for his name and driver license. Thomas was arrested when a search on his license revealed an outstanding warrant. After taking Thomas inside the house, the officer searched Thomas' car and found methamphetamine. Subsequently, the trial court granted Thomas' motion to suppress. In reversing, the appellate found the search valid under New York v. Belton. In New York v. Belton, the U.S. Supreme Court established a "bright-line" rule permitting an officer who has made a lawful custodial arrest of a car's occupant to search the car's passenger compartment as a contemporaneous incident of the arrest. In reversing, the Florida Supreme Court held Belton did not apply because it is limited to situations where the officer initiates contact with a vehicle's occupant while that person remains in the vehicle.

Question

Is New York v. Belton's bright-line rule limited to situations where the officer initiates contact with a vehicle's occupant while that person remains in the vehicle?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Thomas, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari for want of jurisdiction. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that the Florida Supreme Court's decision did not fit any of the categories where the Court "treated state-court judgments as final for jurisdictional purposes although there were further proceedings to take place in the state court." Thus, the Court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was not final.

Cunningham v. Hamilton County OH

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-727

Petitioner

Cunningham

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hamilton County OH

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

527 U.S. 198 (1999)

Argued

Monday, April 19, 1999

Decided

Monday, June 14, 1999

Advocates

Thomas C. Goldstein (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

John J. Arnold (Cincinnati, Ohio, argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

Teresa L. Cunningham, an attorney representing a plaintiff, was served with a request for interrogatories and documents with responses due within 30 days after service. Cunningham failed to comply with those discovery orders, and a Magistrate Judge granted Hamilton County's motion for sanctions against her under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4). The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order for sanctions. The court also disqualified Cunningham as counsel. Although the District Court proceedings were ongoing, Cunningham immediately appealed the order affirming the sanctions award. The Court of Appeals dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction because federal appellate court jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to appeals from "final decisions of the district courts." The court also held that the sanctions order was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, which provides that certain orders may be appealed, notwithstanding the absence of final judgment, because Cunningham's appeal was not completely separate from the merits of the case.

Question

Is an order imposing sanctions on an attorney, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), a final decision and, thus, immediately appealable?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Hamilton County OH, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that an order imposing sanctions on an attorney pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4) is not a "final decision," even where the attorney no longer represents a party in the case. "To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process," Justice Thomas wrote for the Court. The Court concluded that piecemeal appeals and concomitant delays would preclude final judgement if such immediate appeals were possible. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion.

Forney v. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-5737

Petitioner

Forney

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

524 U.S. 266 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1998

Advocates

Lisa S. Blatt (On behalf of the respondent in support of the petitioner)

Allen R. Snyder (As amicus curiae by invitation of the Court in support of the judgment below)

Ralph Wilborn (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Sandra K. Forney applied for Social Security disability benefits. A Social Security Judge determined Forney was minimally disabled, but that she was not disabled enough to qualify for benefits. Consequently she was denied her disability claim. The Social Security Administration's Appeals Council denied Forney's request for review. Forney then sought judicial review in federal District Court. The District Court found that the final determination was inadequately supported by the evidence and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings. Forney appealed the remand order to the Court of Appeals. She contended that the agency's denial of benefits should be reversed outright. The Court of Appeals did not hear her claim, however, for it decided that Forney did not have the legal right to appeal.

Question

Can a Social Security disability claimant seeking court reversal of an agency decision denying benefits appeal a district court order remanding the case to the agency for further proceeding?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Forney, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

Yes. In a unanimous decision announced by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that a person seeking Social Security disability benefits may appeal to a federal Court of Appeals when a District Court remands the case to the agency for further proceedings.

Jefferson, Individually And As Administrator Of The Estate Of Jefferson, Deceased v. City Of Tarrant, Alabama

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

96-957

Petitioner

Jefferson, Individually And As Administrator Of The Estate Of Jefferson, Deceased, et al.

Respondent

City Of Tarrant, Alabama

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

522 U.S. 75 (1997)

Argued

Tuesday, November 4, 1997

Decided

Tuesday, December 9, 1997

Advocates

Dennis G. Pantazis (on behalf of the Petitioners)

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

Alberta Jefferson, an African American woman, died as a result of a fire in her home in the city of Tarrant, Alabama. Her survivors filed multiple complaints against Tarrant City: two under state law and two under federal law. The state law complaints alleged wrongful death and the common-law tort of outrage, while the two federal claims brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleged that Ms. Jefferson's death was the direct result of indifference and racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The City claimed that the complaints were governed by Alabama's Wrongful Death Act, which the Alabama Supreme Court had interpreted to provide only for punitive damages. The City then argued that it could not be sued under Section 1983 because the Supreme Court had ruled that Section 1983 plaintiffs are not entitled to sue a municipality for punitive damages.

The state court ruled in favor of Jefferson, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed and sent the case back to the state court after determining that the state Act did in fact govern the claims. The Supreme Court agreed to consider the federal complaints. The City contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the Alabama Supreme Court's order because the case was not yet final.

Question

Are federal claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 governed by the Alabama Wrongful Death Act?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for City Of Tarrant, Alabama, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

Unanswered. In an 8-1 decision the Court found that it lacked jurisdiction. The opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held that the Court could not rule until the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings were completed and a final decision handed down. The case was dismissed.

Kimberlin v. Quinlan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:16 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-2068

Petitioner

Kimberlin

Respondent

Quinlan et al.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 321 (1995)

Argued

Wednesday, April 26, 1995

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1995

Advocates

Paul Bender (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner)

Michael L. Martinez (on behalf of the Respondents)

Howard T. Rosenblatt (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Kimberlin, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Johnson v. Jones

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:35 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

94-455

Petitioner

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jones

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

515 U.S. 304 (1995)

Argued

Tuesday, April 18, 1995

Decided

Monday, June 12, 1995

Advocates

Charles A. Rothfeld (Argued the cause for petitioners)

Edward G. Proctor, Jr. (Argued the cause for respondent)

Cornelia T. L. Pillard (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae, supporting the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Is a Federal District Court's determination, in denying a summary judgment motion of police officers entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense, that the record raised a factual issue an appealable final decision?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Jones, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 29 U.S.C. 1291

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that a defendant, who is entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a District Court's summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a genuine issue of fact for trial. The Court reasoned, in part, that the competing considerations underlying questions of finality, including the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review, the danger of denying justice by delay, the comparative expertise of trial and appellate courts, and the wise use of appellate resources, argue against allowing immediate appeals of orders of the kind in question and in favor of limiting interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity matters to cases presenting more abstract issues of law.

Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:39 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

93-405

Petitioner

Digital Equipment Corp.

Respondent

Desktop Direct Inc.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1993-1994)

Opinion

511 U.S. 863 (1994)

Argued

Tuesday, February 22, 1994

Decided

Monday, June 6, 1994

Advocates

John G. Roberts, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Rex E. Lee (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

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.

Question

Is the denial of a "right not to sue" established by a settlement agreement immediately appealable under the Supreme Court's decision in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Desktop Direct Inc., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

No. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the denial of immunity - while cause for concern - does not automatically create a right to immediate appeal. It is important to have final judgments before appeals are made, Justice David H. Souter wrote for the Court, and exceptions should only be made in particularly important cases. A "right not to go to trial," while significant, is rarely the key factor in a settlement agreement, and cannot compare in importance to the right to be free from "double jeopardy" in criminal court or the encroachment on public duties caused by a denial of immunity to public officials.

Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:52:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

91-1010

Petitioner

Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

506 U.S. 139 (1993)

Argued

Monday, November 9, 1992

Decided

Tuesday, January 12, 1993

Advocates

Richard G. Taranto (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Peter W. Sipkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Puerto Rico Aqueduct And Sewer Authority, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, Trustee For The Estate Of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:01 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-1791

Petitioner

Connecticut National Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Germain, Trustee For The Estate Of O'sullivan's Fuel Oil Co., Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)

Opinion

503 U.S. 249 (1992)

Argued

Tuesday, January 21, 1992

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1992

Advocates

Janet C. Hall (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas M. Germain (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Connecticut National Bank, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Melkonyan v. Sullivan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-5538

Petitioner

Melkonyan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Sullivan

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

501 U.S. 89 (1991)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 10, 1991

Advocates

Clifford M. Sloan (on behalf of the Respondent)

Brian Wolfman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Melkonyan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Access to Justice

None

Firstier Mtge. Co. v. Investors Mtge. Ins. Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:38 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-1063

Petitioner

Firstier Mtge. Co.

Respondent

Investors Mtge. Ins. Co.

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

498 U.S. 269 (1991)

Argued

Wednesday, October 10, 1990

Decided

Tuesday, January 15, 1991

Advocates

Jack S. Dawson (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John P. Roberts (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Firstier Mtge. Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Sullivan v. Finkelstein

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

89-504

Petitioner

Sullivan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Finkelstein

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

496 U.S. 617 (1990)

Argued

Tuesday, April 24, 1990

Decided

Monday, June 18, 1990

Advocates

David L. Shapiro (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Kenneth V. Handal (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Sullivan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:29 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

88-23

Petitioner

Lauro Lines S.R.L.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chasser

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 495 (1989)

Argued

Monday, April 17, 1989

Decided

Monday, May 22, 1989

Advocates

Raymond A. Connell (on behalf of Petitioner)

Arnold I. Burns (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Chasser, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:34 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1905

Petitioner

Midland Asphalt Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

489 U.S. 794 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, January 17, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, March 28, 1989

Advocates

Richard James Braun (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Lawrence S. Robbins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:40 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-283

Petitioner

Budinich

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Becton Dickinson & Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 196 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1988

Advocates

Terre Lee Rushton (on behalf of the Respondent)

Thomas Frank (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Becton Dickinson & Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-336

Petitioner

Van Cauwenberghe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Biard

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

486 U.S. 517 (1988)

Argued

Monday, March 21, 1988

Decided

Monday, June 13, 1988

Advocates

John G. Kester (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Thomas C. Walsh (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Biard, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:25:54 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

86-1329

Petitioner

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mayacamas Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1987-1988)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

485 U.S. 271 (1988)

Argued

Monday, December 7, 1987

Decided

Tuesday, March 22, 1988

Advocates

Elliot L. Bien (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Gregory H. Ward (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mayacamas Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors In Action

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-184

Petitioner

Stringfellow

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Concerned Neighbors In Action

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 370 (1987)

Argued

Tuesday, January 20, 1987

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1987

Advocates

David L. Mulliken (on behalf of Petitioners)

Joel Reynolds (on behalf of Respondents)

Paul J. Larkin, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent United States in support of Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Stringfellow, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Pennsylvania v. Ritchie

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-1347

Petitioner

Pennsylvania

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ritchie

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1986-1987)

Opinion

480 U.S. 39 (1987)

Argued

Wednesday, December 3, 1986

Decided

Tuesday, February 24, 1987

Advocates

Edward Marcus Clark (on behalf of the petitioner)

John H. Corbett, Jr. (as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Pennsylvania, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:20:28 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

84-127

Petitioner

Richardson-Merrell Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Koller

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

472 U.S. 424 (1985)

Argued

Tuesday, February 26, 1985

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1985

Advocates

Michael H. Gottesman (on behalf of the Respondents)

Lawrence E. Walsh (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Richardson-Merrell Inc., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Richardson v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-2113

Petitioner

Richardson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

468 U.S. 317 (1984)

Argued

Tuesday, March 20, 1984

Decided

Friday, June 29, 1984

Advocates

Michael W. McConnell (on behalf of the respondent)

Allan M. Palmer (on behalf of petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Richardson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Flanagan v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:29:19 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

82-374

Petitioner

Flanagan

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

465 U.S. 259 (1984)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1983

Decided

Tuesday, February 21, 1984

Advocates

Edward H. Rubenstone (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Andrew L. Frey (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Flanagan, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Gillette Co. v. Miner

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:05 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1493

Petitioner

Gillette Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Miner

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

459 U.S. 86 (1982)

Argued

Wednesday, November 10, 1982

Decided

Monday, December 6, 1982

Advocates

Arthur R. Miller (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Robert S. Atkins (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Miner, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:32:57 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-1203

Petitioner

Moses H. Cone Hospital

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Mercury Constr. Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

460 U.S. 1 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, November 2, 1982

Decided

Wednesday, February 23, 1983

Advocates

Jack W. Floyd (on behalf of Petitioner)

A.H. Gaede, Jr. (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Mercury Constr. Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Flynt v. Ohio

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-420

Petitioner

Flynt

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ohio

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

451 U.S. 619 (1981)

Argued

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Decided

Monday, May 18, 1981

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Ohio, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Carson v. American Brands, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:28:44 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1236

Petitioner

Carson

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

American Brands, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 79 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, December 10, 1980

Decided

Wednesday, February 25, 1981

Advocates

Harlon L. Dalton (on behalf of the United States and the E.E.O.C. as amici curiae)

Jay J. Levit (on behalf of the Respondent Unions)

Napoleon B. Williams, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Henry T. Wickham (on behalf of the Respondent American Brands, Inc)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carson, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-678

Appellee

San Diego

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

450 U.S. 621 (1981)

Argued

Monday, December 1, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, March 24, 1981

Advocates

C. Alan Sumption (on behalf of the Appellees)

Louis E. Goebel (on behalf of the Appellant)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for San Diego, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:31 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

79-1420

Petitioner

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Risjord

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

449 U.S. 368 (1981)

Argued

Wednesday, November 12, 1980

Decided

Tuesday, January 13, 1981

Advocates

Harvey Grossman (on behalf of the Petitioner)

John R. Gibson (on behalf of the Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Gardner v. Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

77-560

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Westinghouse Broadcasting Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 478 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Westinghouse Broadcasting Co., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:50 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

76-1836

Petitioner

Coopers & Lybrand

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Livesay

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

437 U.S. 463 (1978)

Argued

Wednesday, March 22, 1978

Decided

Wednesday, June 21, 1978

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Coopers & Lybrand, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

None

Mitchell v. Donovan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:17 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

726

Appellee

Donovan

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Mitchell

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

398 U.S. 427 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, April 21, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 15, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Mitchell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Goldstein v. Cox

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:52 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Cox

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Goldstein

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

396 U.S. 471 (1970)

Argued

Monday, November 17, 1969

Decided

Monday, January 26, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Cox, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1253

None

Banks v. California

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:56 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

670

Petitioner

Banks

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 708 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 16, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for California, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Switzerland Assn. v. Horne's Market

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:07 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Switzerland Assn.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Horne's Market

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Decided By

Warren Court (1965-1967)

Opinion

385 U.S. 23 (1966)

Argued

Monday, October 17, 1966

Decided

Monday, November 7, 1966

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Horne's Market, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1292

None

Gillespie v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:10 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gillespie

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

U.S. Steel Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

379 U.S. 148 (1964)

Argued

Tuesday, October 13, 1964

Decided

Monday, December 7, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for U.S. Steel Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Employers' Liability

None

Arceneaux v. Louisiana

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:43 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Arceneaux

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

376 U.S. 336 (1964)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1964

Decided

Monday, March 9, 1964

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Louisiana, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1257

None

Andrews v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:38:47 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

491

Petitioner

Andrews

Respondent

United States

Consolidation

No. 494

Heard By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

373 U.S. 334 (1963)

Argued

March 25-26, 1963

Decided

Monday, May 20, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Andrews, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Dibella v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:42:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Dibella

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

United States v. Koenig, No. 93

Heard By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Decided By

Warren Court (1958-1962)

Opinion

369 U.S. 121 (1962)

Argued

January 16-17, 1962

Decided

Monday, March 19, 1962

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Dibella, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

Parr v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:25:24 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

320

Petitioner

Parr

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 202 MISC

Heard By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Decided By

Warren Court (1955-1956)

Opinion

351 U.S. 513 (1956)

Argued

Wednesday, March 28, 1956

Decided

Monday, June 11, 1956

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:18:36 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

75-584

Petitioner

Federal Power Commission

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

423 U.S. 326 (1976)

Decided

Monday, January 19, 1976

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for FPC, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Natural Gas, or Natural Gas Policy Acts

None

Shenandoah Broadcasting v. Ascap.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:37:41 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

323

Petitioner

Shenandoah Broadcasting

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Ascap.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Warren Court (1962-1965)

Opinion

375 U.S. 39 (1963)

Decided

Monday, October 21, 1963

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Shenandoah Broadcasting, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 29

None

United States v. Jose

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:51 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

95-2082

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Jose

Respondent Type

Respondent

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

519 U.S. 54 (1996)

Decided

Monday, December 2, 1996

Facts of the Case

In a proceeding to enforce two IRS summonses issued to Laddie Jose, as trustee for the Jose Business Trust and Jose Family Trust, the U.S. and an IRS agent represented that the documents sought were for a civil investigation. Ultimately, the District Court ordered enforcement of the summonses, requiring the IRS to give Jose five days' notice before transferring summoned information from its Examination Division to any other IRS office. The IRS appealed, challenging the District Court's authority to impose such a restriction. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as not ripe because the record did not indicate that the Examination Division had attempted to disclose the documents to any other IRS division; therefore, the five-day notice requirement had not been triggered.

Question

Is a Federal District Court's order, which enforced IRS summonses but required the IRS to give notice prior to any internal transfer of summoned documents, appealable as final decision?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1291

Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the District Court issued a final, appealable order. The Court reasoned that the District Court's final order was indeed final because it was a decision dispositively granting in part and denying in part the remedy requested by the IRS. The Court also noted that finality, not ripeness, is the doctrine governing appeals from the District Court to the Court of Appeals. To appeal the District Court's decision, the IRS was neither obligated to defy the order nor required to provide notice of its intention to transfer documents internally, concluded the Court.