Supreme Court - Sliplists, 547 U. S., Part 1

547 U. S., Part 1

Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam)

R036; No. 04-805; 2/28/06. It is not per se illegal under �of the Sherman Act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its products.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, Inc., 547 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R037; No. 04-1244; 2/28/06. In adopting the Hobbs Act provision prohibiting "obstruct[ing], delay[ing], or affect[ing] commerce . . . by . . . robbery or extortion . . . or commit[ting] or threaten[ing] physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section," 18 U. S. C. �51(a), Congress did not intend to create a freestanding physical violence offense unrelated to robbery or extortion, but only to forbid acts or threats of physical violence in furtherance of a plan to engage in robbery or extortion (and related attempts or conspiracies).

Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R038; No. 04-1329; 3/1/06. Because a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R039; No. 04-1152; 3/6/06. Because Congress could require law schools to provide equal access to military recruiters without violating the schools' freedoms of speech and association, the Third Circuit erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment-which denies federal funds to educational institutions that fail to give military recruiters access equal to that provided other recruiters-likely violates the First Amendment.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R040; No. 04-1371; 3/21/06. The background, text, and purpose of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998's pre-emption provision demonstrate that SLUSA pre-empts state-law holder class-action securities fraud claims of the kind respondent alleges here.

United States v. Grubbs, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R041; No. 04-1414; 3/21/06. "Anticipatory" search warrants based on an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place are not categorically unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment's probable-cause provision; the anticipatory warrant at issue did not violate the Amendment's particularity requirement, which does not include the conditions precedent to execution of such a warrant.

Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R042; No. 04-1067; 3/22/06. In the circumstances here at issue, a physically present co-occupant's stated refusal to permit entry to a home renders warrantless entry and search unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment and invalid as to him.

Arizona v. California, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R043; No. 8, Orig; 3/27/06. The settlement agreements are approved, the joint motion for entry of decree is granted, the Consolidated Decree is entered, and the Special Master is discharged.

Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R044; No. 05-552; 4/17/06. In this asylum claim based on fear of persecution, the Ninth Circuit erred in finding in the first instance, rather than remanding the question to the appropriate administrative agency, see INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U. S. 12, 18 (per curiam), that members of a family constitute a "particular social group" within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Salinas v. United States, 547 U. S. ___ (2006) (per curiam)

R045; No. 05-8400; 4/24/06. The Fifth Circuit erred in treating petitioner's prior conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance as a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R046; No. 04-1618; 4/25/06. A governmental entity that does not qualify as an "arm of the State" for Eleventh Amendment purposes cannot assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R047; No. 04-1324; 4/25/06. In the circumstances presented, the District Court had discretion to correct the State's erroneous time computation and, accordingly, to dismiss Day's federal habeas petition as untimely under the one-year limitation period set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Jones v. Flowers, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R048; No. 04-1477; 4/26/06. When mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a State must take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do so; because additional steps were available given the circumstances here, the State's effort to provide notice to petitioner was insufficient to satisfy due process.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R049; No. 04-1495; 4/26/06. A plaintiff in a retaliatory-prosecution action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, must plead and show the absence of probable cause for pressing the underlying criminal charges.

Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R050; No. 04-1506; 5/1/06. Federal Medicaid law does not authorize Arkansas to assert a lien on Ahlborn抯 tort settlement in an amount exceeding that portion of the settlement that represented Medicaid payments for Ahlborn抯 medical care, and the federal anti-lien provision affirmatively prohibits the State from doing so.

Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R051; No. 04-1544; 5/1/06. The Ninth Circuit had no warrant from Congress, or from this Court抯 decisions, for its sweeping extension of the 損robate exception� this Court has recognized to federal-court jurisdiction; because this case does not fall within the exception抯 scope, the District Court properly asserted jurisdiction over petitioner抯 tort counterclaim against respondent, despite ongoing proceedings in a Texas Probate Court.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U. S. ___ (2006)

R052; No. 04-1327; 5/1/06. A criminal defendant抯 federal constitutional rights are violated by an evidence rule under which the defendant may not introduce proof of third-party guilt if the prosecution has introduced forensic evidence that, if believed, strongly supports a guilty verdict.

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

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

Last Updated: May 1, 2006
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s547pt1.html