Supreme Court - Sliplists, 545 U. S., Part 2

545 U. S., Part 2

Kelo v. New London, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R069; No. 04-108; 6/23/05. Respondent city's proposed condemnation of petitioners' property for use under a development plan designed to revitalize the city economically qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R070; No. 04-6432; 6/23/05. Because petitioner's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenged only the District Court's previous ruling on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's statute of limitations, it is not the equivalent of a successive habeas petition and can be ruled upon by the District Court without precertification by the Eleventh Circuit; however, under the proper Rule 60(b) standards, the District Court was correct to deny relief here.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R071; No. 04-70; 6/23/05. Where the other elements of jurisdiction are present and at least one named plaintiff in an action satisfies 28 U. S. C. §1332(a)'s amount-in-controversy requirement, §1367 authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of other plaintiffs in the same Article III case or controversy, even if those claims are for less than the requisite amount.

Orff v. United States, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R072; No. 03-1566; 6/23/05. In enacting a provision of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, 43 U. S. C. §390uu, Congress did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity from a breach of contract suit brought by petitioners, who purchase water from a local water district that receives its water, pursuant to contract, from the United States Bureau of Reclamation.

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R073; No. 03-10198; 6/23/05. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require the appointment of counsel for defendants, convicted on pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, who seek access to first-tier review in the Michigan Court of Appeals.

Mayle v. Felix, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R074; No. 04-563; 6/23/05. A state prisoner's amendment to his federal habeas petition does not relate back to his timely original petition (and thereby avoid the one-year limitations period imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) when the amendment asserts a new ground for relief supported by facts different in time and type from those set forth in the original petition.

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R075; No. 03-1500; 6/27/05. The Fifth Circuit's decision that the Establishment Clause allows the display of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the Texas State Capitol grounds is affirmed.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R076; No. 04-278; 6/27/05. Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of her restraining order against her husband.

Bell v. Thompson, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R077; No. 04-514; 6/27/05. Assuming that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 authorizes a court of appeals to stay a mandate following a denial of certiorari and that a court may stay the mandate without entering an order, the Sixth Circuit's decision to do so here was an abuse of discretion.

McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R078; No. 03-1693; 6/27/05. A determination of petitioner Counties' purpose in posting the Ten Commandments on their courthouse walls is a sound basis for ruling on, and may be dispositive of, Establishment Clause challenges to the postings; evaluation of the Counties' claim of secular purpose for the final versions of their displays should take account of the displays' evolution and development.

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R079; No. 04-480; 6/27/05. One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U. S. ___ (2005)

R080; No. 04-277; 6/27/05. The Federal Communications Commission's conclusion that broadband cable modem companies are exempt from mandatory common-carrier regulation under the Communications Act of 1934 is a lawful construction of the Act under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

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

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

Last Updated: June 27, 2005
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s545pt2.html