Supreme Court - Sliplists, 552 U. S., Part 1

552 U. S., Part 1

Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom F., 552 U. S. 1 (2007)

R001; No. 06-637; 10/10/07. Judgment affirmed by equally divided Court.

Allen v. Siebert, 552 U. S. 1 (2007) ) (per curiam)

R002; No. 06-1680; 11/05/07. . Respondent is not entitled to tolling of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996抯 1-year statute of limitations for filing a federal habeas petition where his prior petition for state postconviction relief was rejected as untimely by the Alabama courts and thus, under Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U. S. 408, 414, 417, was not a "properly filed" pending state petition within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. �44(d)(2).

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization,, 552 U. S. ___ (2007)

R003; No. 06-1287; 12/4/07. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 49 U. S. C. �501(b)(1), allows a railroad to attempt to show that state methods for determining the value of in-state railroad property for tax purposes result in a discriminatory determination of true market value.

Logan v. United States,, 552 U. S. ___ (2007)

R004; No. 06-6911; 12/4/07. Title 18 U. S. C. �1(a)(20)-under which a prior conviction may be disregarded for sentence-enhancement purposes under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 if the offender "has had civil rights restored"-does not cover the case of an offender who retained civil rights at all times, and whose legal status, postconviction, remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation.

Gall v. United States, 552 U. S. ___ (2007)

R005; No. 06-7949; 12/10/07. While the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range is relevant, courts of appeals must review all sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard; here, the Eighth Circuit failed to give due deference to the District Court’s reasoned and reasonable sentencing decision.

Watson v. United States, 552 U. S. ___ (2007)

R006; No. 06-571; 12/10/07. A person does not “use” a firearm under 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A)—which sets a mandatory minimum sentence, depending on the facts, for a defendant who, “during and in relation to any . . . drug trafficking crime[,] . . . uses . . . a firearm”—when he receives a gun in trade for drugs.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U. S. ___ (2007)

R007; No. 06-6330; 12/10/07. The cocaine Guidelines, like all other Federal Sentencing Guidelines, are advisory only, and the Fourth Circuit erred in holding the Guidelines’ crack/powder cocaine disparity effectively mandatory; a district judge must include the Guidelines range in the array of factors warranting consideration, but may determine that, in the particular case, a within-Guidelines sentence is “greater than necessary” to serve the sentencing objectives, 18 U. S. C. §3553(a), and may consider the disparity between the Guidelines’ treatment of crack and powder offenses in making that determination; in this case, Kimbrough’s sentence, which was 4.5 years below the Guidelines minimum, should survive appellate consideration.

Arave v. Hoffman, 552 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R008; No. 07-110; 1/7/08. Because respondent抯 claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial plea bargaining is moot, his motion to vacate the decision below is granted, and the Ninth Circuit抯 judgment is vacated to the extent that it addressed that claim.

Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U. S. ___ (2008) (per curiam)

R009; No. 07-212; 1/7/08. Because this Court has never held that an attorney抯 assistance is presumed ineffective if he participates in a plea hearing by speaker phone rather than by physical appearance, nor extended United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, to this novel factual context, the Seventh Circuit erred in allowing its original opinion granting relief on this basis to stand in light of Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. ___.

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

R010; No. 06-1164; 1/8/08. The court of claims statute of limitations requires sua sponte consideration of a lawsuit's timeliness, despite the Government's waiver of the issue.

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

R011; No. 06-43; 1/15/08. The private right of action this Court has found implied in �(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b�does not reach respondents because investors did not rely upon respondents� statements or representations in purchasing the stock of Charter Communications, Inc.

Knight v. Commissioner, 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

R012; No. 06-1286; 1/16/08. Investment advisory fees paid by a trust generally are subject to the 2% floor for itemized deductions under the Internal Revenue Code.

New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

R013; No. 06-766; 1/16/08. New York抯 system for choosing party nominees for the State Supreme Court does not violate the First Amendment.

Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 552 U. S. ___ (2008)

R014; No. 06-9130; 1/22/08. The text and structure of 28 U. S. C. �80(c)梬hich creates an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act抯 waiver of sovereign immunity where a claim arises from the detention of property by 揳ny officer of customs or excise or any other law enforcement officer敆demonstrate that the broad phrase 揳ny other law enforcement officer� covers all law enforcement officers, not just those enforcing customs or excise laws.

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

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

Last Updated: January 22, 2008
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s552pt1.html