Supreme Court - Sliplists, 544 U. S., Part 1

544 U. S., Part 1

Tenet v. Doe, 544 U. S. 1 (2005)

R026; No. 03-1395; 3/2/05. The rule of Totten v. United States, 92 U. S. 105, prohibiting suits against the Government based on covert espionage agreements bars respondents' suit alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency failed to provide them with financial assistance it had promised in return for their espionage activities during the Cold War.

Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R027; No. 03-9168; 3/7/05. Enquiry under the Armed Career Criminal Act-which mandates an enhanced sentence for a felon possessing a firearm after three prior convictions for, inter alia, violent felonies-to determine whether a prior guilty plea to burglary defined by a nongeneric state statute necessarily admitted elements of the generic offense is limited to the terms of the charging document, to the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the defendant confirmed the factual basis for the plea, or to some comparable judicial record of this information.

Ballard v. Commissioner, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R028; No. 03-184; 3/7/05. No statute authorizes, and Tax Court Rule 183's current text does not warrant, that court's practice of excluding from the record on appeal reports submitted to the court by special trial judges conducting hearings in cases involving tax deficiencies exceeding $50,000.

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R029; No. 03-287; 3/7/05. State prisoners may bring a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of state parole procedures; they need not seek relief exclusively under the federal habeas corpus statutes.

Muehler v. Mena, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R030; No. 03-1423; 3/22/05. Police officers did not violate respondent's Fourth Amendment rights when they detained her in handcuffs for the duration of a lawfully executed search for weapons and evidence of gang membership, or when they questioned her during the detention regarding her immigration status.

Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R031; No. 03-1601; 3/22/05. An individual may not enforce the limitations on local zoning authority set forth in the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U. S. C. §332(c)(7), through an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983.

Brown v. Payton, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R032; No. 03-1039; 3/22/05. The Ninth Circuit's decision affirming the District Court's grant of habeas relief to respondent state prisoner was contrary to the limits on federal habeas review imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).

Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R033; No. 02-1672; 03/29/05. The private right of action implied by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 encompasses claims of retaliation against an individual because he has complained about sex discrimination.

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R034; No. 03-855; 03/29/05. Given the longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of central New York State and its inhabitants, the regulatory authority over the area constantly exercised by the State and its counties and towns for 200 years, and respondent Tribe's long delay in seeking relief against parties other than the United States, standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice preclude the Tribe from unilaterally reviving its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, by reacquiring parcels of land within its historic reservation through open-market purchases.

Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R035; No. 03-1160; 03/30/05. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 authorizes recovery in disparate-impact cases comparable to that authorized in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, but petitioners have not set forth a valid disparate-impact claim here.

Rhines v. Weber, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R036; No. 03-9046; 03/30/05. A federal district court has discretion to stay a mixed habeas petition to allow a petitioner to present his unexhausted claims to a state court in the first instance and then to return to federal court for review of his perfected petition.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R037; No. 03-1696; 03/30/05. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal district court jurisdiction only in cases of the same kind as Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U. S. 462: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the federal district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.

Johnson v. United States, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R038; No. 03-9685; 04/04/05. In a case in which a prisoner collaterally attacks his federal sentence on the ground that a state conviction used to enhance that sentence has since been vacated, 28 U. S. C. §2255, 6(4)'s 1-year limitations period begins to run when the petitioner receives notice of the order vacating the prior conviction, provided that he has sought it with due diligence in state court after entry of judgment in the federal case in which the sentence was enhanced.

Rousey v. Jacoway, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R039; No. 03-1407; 04/04/05. Petitioners can exempt Individual Retirement Account assets from their bankruptcy estate because the IRAs fulfill both of the 11 U. S. C. §522(d)(10)(E) requirements at issue here-they provide a right to payment "on account of . . . age" and they are "similar plan[s] or contract[s]" to "stock bonus, pension, profitsharing, [or] annuity . . . plan[s]."

Search Tip: Use the binocular icons to search within PDF documents.

(To view PDF files) Adobe Access PDF to HTML conversion

Last Updated: March 1, 2006
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s544pt1.html