Supreme Court - Sliplists, 544 U. S., Part 2

544 U. S., Part 2

Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R040; No. 03-932; 4/19/05. In a securities fraud action, a security's inflated purchase price will not by itself constitute or cause the relevant economic loss needed to allege and prove "loss causation" under 15 U. S. C. §78u-4(b)(4); respondents' complaint was legally insufficient in respect to its "loss causation" allegation.

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

R041; No. 03-725; 4/26/05. A plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U. S. C. §1343, and a prosecution for such fraud does not derogate from the common-law revenue rule barring courts from enforcing foreign sovereigns' tax laws.

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

R042; No. 03-750; 4/26/05. Title 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), which forbids a felon "convicted in any court" from possessing a firearm, applies only to convictions entered in a domestic court, not to foreign convictions.

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R043; No. 03-9627; 4/27/05. Because petitioner filed his federal habeas petition beyond the deadline and is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling for the time his untimely state postconviction petition was pending, his federal petition is barred by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966's statute of limitations.

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R044; No. 03-388; 4/27/05. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act's pre-emption provision applies only to state-law "requirements for labeling and packaging," 7 U. S. C. §136v(b); petitioner farmers' defective design, defective manufacture, negligent testing, and breach of express warranty claims against respondent pesticide producer were not premised on such requirements and are thus not pre-empted; while their fraud and negligent-failure-to-warn claims are based on common-law rules that qualify as labeling and packaging requirements, the Court of Appeals should resolve in the first instance whether those claims are pre-empted.

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R045; No. 03-1116; 5/16/05. Michigan and New York laws limiting the direct sale of out-of-state wines discriminate against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, and that discrimination is neither authorized nor permitted by the Twenty-first Amendment.

Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R046; No. 04-163; 5/23/05. The formula set forth in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260-where the Court declared that government regulation of private property "effects a [compensable] taking if [it] does not substantially advance legitimate state interests"-is not an appropriate test for determining whether a regulation effects a Fifth Amendment taking.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn., 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R047; No. 03-1164; 5/23/05. Because a federally imposed assessment (or checkoff) on cattle sales and imports is used to fund the Federal Government's own speech, it is not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge.

Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R048; No. 04-37; 5/23/05. The Tenth Circuit's decision invalidating Oklahoma's semiclosed primary system as violative of the First Amendment right to freedom of association is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R049; No. 04-5293; 5/23/05. The Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during a capital trial's penalty phase, as it does during the guilt phase, unless that use is "justified by an essential state interest"-such as courtroom security-specific to the defendant on trial. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U. S. 560, 568-569.

Medellín v. Dretke, 544 U. S. ___ (2005) (per curiam)

R050; No. 04-5928; 5/23/05. The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted in light of the possibility that Texas courts will provide petitioner, a Mexican national asserting a claim under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, with the review he seeks, and the potential thereafter for review in this Court.

Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R051; No. 04-368; 5/31/05. At petitioner auditor's trial for destroying documents relating to Enron Corporation's financial difficulties, the jury instructions failed to convey properly the elements of a conviction under 18 U. S. C. 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B), which prohibit "knowingly . . . corruptly persuad[ing] another person . . . with intent to . . . cause" that person to "withhold" documents from, or "alter" documents for use in, an "official proceeding."

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

R052; No. 03-9877; 5/31/05. On its face, 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U. S. C. 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2)-which provides that "[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution," unless the burden furthers "a compelling governmental interest," and does so by "the least restrictive means"-qualifies as a permissible accommodation of religion that is not barred by the Establishment Clause.

Tory v. Cochran, 544 U. S. ___ (2005)

R053; No. 03-1488; 5/31/05. Cochran's widow is substituted as respondent; the California Court of Appeal's judgment is vacated because the injunction prohibiting petitioners from, e.g., picketing Cochran's law firm has lost its rationale.

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

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

Last Updated: May 31, 2005
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s544pt2.html