Supreme Court Opinions

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine Inc

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns a seaman’s ability to sue a vessel owner in state court for personal injuries sustained aboard a vessel. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime claims, but the jurisdictional statute “sav[es] to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” 28 U. s. C. § 1333(1). Another statute grants vessel owners the right to seek limited liability in federal court for claims of damage aboard their vessels. 46 U. S. C. App. § 181et seq.In this case, the District Court, after conducting proceedings to preserve the vessel owner’s right to seek limited liability, dissolved the injunction that prevented the seaman from litigating his personal injury claims in state court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the vessel owner had a right to contest liability in federal court, and that the seaman did not have a saved remedy in state court. The question presented is whether the District Court abused its discretion in dissolving the injunction.

I

Petitioner, James F. Lewis, worked as a deckhand aboard the M/V Karen Michelle, owned by respondent, Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. Petitioner claims that on March 17, 1998, he was injured aboard the M/V Karen Michelle when he tripped over a wire and hurt his back. App. 12. In April 1998, petitioner sued respondent in the Circuit Court of Mad ison County, Illinois. Petitioner claimed negligence under

Dissent, Due Process

Liljeberg v. Health Svcs. Acq. Corp

Dissent, Due Process / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

For the reasons given by CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, ante at 486 U. S. 871 -873, I agree that “constructive knowledge” cannot be the basis for a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The question then remains whether respondent is entitled to a new trial because there are other “extraordinary circumstances,” apart from the § 455(a) violation found by the Fifth Circuit, that justify “relief from the operation of the judgment.” See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 60(b)(6); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U. S. 193, 340 U. S. 199 (1950); Klapprott v. United States, 335 U. S. 601, 335 U. S. 613 (1949). Although the Court collects an impressive array of arguments that might support the granting of such relief, I believe the issue should be addressed in the first instance by the courts below. I would therefore remand this case with appropriate instructions.

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Stephen Breyer

Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, Economic Activity, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Stephen Breyer / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. The Privileges and Immunities Clause, U. S. Const., Art.

IV; § 2, provides that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” In this case, we consider whether a provision of New York law that effectively denies only nonresident taxpayers an income tax deduction for alimony paid is consistent with that constitutional command. We conclude that because New York has not adequately justified the discrimi natory treatment of nonresidents effected by N. Y. Tax Law § 631(b)(6), the challenged provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

I A

New York law requires nonresident individuals to pay tax on net income from New York real property or tangible personalty and net income from employment or business, trade, or professional operations in New York. See N. Y. Tax Law §§ 631(a), (b) (McKinney 1987). Under provisions enacted by the New York Legislature in 1987, the tax on such income is determined according to a method that takes into consideration the relationship between a nonresident taxpayer’s New York source income and the taxpayer’s total income, as reported to the Federal Government. § 601(e)(1).

Computation of the income tax nonresidents owe New York involves several steps. First, nonresidents must compute their tax liability “as if” they resided in New York. Ibid. The starting point for this computation is federal adjusted gross income, which,

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer

Lopez v. Monterey County

Antonin Scalia, Civil Rights, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act or Voting Rights Act), 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973et seq.,des

* Deborah J. La Fetra filed a brief for the Pacific Legal Foundation as amicus curiae urging affirmance. ignated States and political subdivisions are required to obtain federal preclearance before giving effect to changes in their voting laws. See § 1973c. Here, the State of California (California or State), which is not subject to the Act’s preclearance requirements, has passed legislation altering the scheme for electing judges in Monterey County, California (Monterey County or County), a “covered” jurisdiction required to preclear its voting changes. In this appeal, we review the conclusion of a three-judge District Court that Monterey County need not seek approval of these changes before giving them effect. The District Court reasoned, specifically, that California is not subject to the preclearance requirement and that Monterey County merely implemented a California law without exercising any independent discretion. We hold that the Act’s preclearance requirements apply to measures mandated by a noncovered State to the extent that these measures will effect a voting change in a covered county. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the District Court.

I

The instant appeal marks the second occasion on which this Court has addressed issues arising in the course of litigation over the method for electing

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, William Rehnquist

Lanier v. South Carolina

Concurrence, Criminal Procedure, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, concurring in the judgment.

I concur in the judgment of the Court vacating the judgment and remanding this case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. For the reasons stated in my opinion in Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U. S. 687, 457 U. S. 694 (1982) (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting), I believe the court on remand can consider the timing, frequency, and likely effect of whatever Miranda warnings were given to petitioner as factors relevant to the question whether, if petitioner was illegally arrested, his subsequent confession was tainted by the illegal arrest.

JUSTICE MARSHALL dissents from this summary disposition, which has been ordered without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs on the merits. See Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U. S. 111, 462 U. S. 120 -121 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Wyrick v. Fields, 459 U. S. 42, 459 U. S. 51 -52 (1982) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting).Disclaimer:Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.Receive free daily summaries of US Supreme Court opinions. Email *First Party Lanier Second Party

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Majority, William Rehnquist

Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Criminal Procedure, Majority, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III-A, and IV, concluding that §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody. Pp. 401-405,408.

(a) A § 2254 petitioner must first show that he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” § 2254(a). Because Coss is no longer serving the sentences for his 1986 convictions, he cannot bring a federal habeas action directed solely at those convictions. However, his § 2254 petition can be (and has been) construed as asserting a challenge to the 1990 sentence he is currently serving, as enhanced by the allegedly invalid 1986 convictions. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 488, 493. Thus, he satisfies §2254’s “in custody” requirement. Pp.401-402.

(b) The more important question here is the one left unanswered in Maleng: the extent to which a prior expired conviction may be subject to challenge in an attack upon a current sentence it was used to enhance. In Daniels v. United States, ante, p. 374, this Court held that a federal prisoner who has failed to pursue available remedies to challenge a prior conviction (or has done so unsuccessfully) may not collaterally attack that conviction through a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 directed at the enhanced federal sentence. That holding is now extended to cover § 2254 petitions

Dissent, First Amendment

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Dissent, First Amendment / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

The Court holds that Amtrak is a Government entity and therefore all of its actions are subject to constitutional challenge. Lebron, however, expressly disavowed this argument below, and consideration of this broad and unexpected question is precluded because it was not presented in the petition for certiorari. The question on which we granted certiorari is narrower: Whether the alleged suppression of Lebron’s speech by Amtrak, as a concededly private entity, should be imputed to the Government. Because Amtrak’s decision to reject Lebron’s billboard proposal was a matter of private business judgment and not of Government coercion, I would affirm the judgment below.

I

This Court’s Rule 14.1(a) provides: “Only the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” While “[t]he statement of any question

to common stock. This subsection was originally enacted in 1970, and has not since been amended. It is irreconcilable with the revised provision for a nine-member board, § 543(a)(1). presented will be deemed to comprise every subsidiary question,” ibid., questions that are merely “related” or “complementary” to the question presented are not “fairly included therein.” Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537-538 (1992) (emphasis deleted). In Yee, we held that a regulatory taking argument, while subsidiary to the umbrella question whether a taking had occurred, was only complementary to the physical taking

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Judicial Power, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist

Meghrig v. KFC Western Inc

Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, David Souter, John Paul Stevens, Judicial Power, Majority, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether § 7002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U. S. C. § 6972, authorizes a private cause of action to recover the prior cost of cleaning up toxic waste that does not, at the time of suit, continue to pose an endangerment to health or the environment. We conclude that it does not.

I

Respondent KFC Western, Inc. (KFC), owns and operates a “Kentucky Fried Chicken” restaurant on a parcel of property in Los Angeles. In 1988, KFC discovered during the course of a construction project that the property was contaminated with petroleum. The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services ordered KFC to attend to the problem, and KFC spent $211,000 removing and disposing of the oil-tainted soil.

Three years later, KFC brought this suit under the citizen suit provision of RCRA, 90 Stat. 2825, as amended, 42

Massachusetts, and William L. Pardee, John Beling, and Karen McGuire, Assistant Attorneys General, Jeremiah W Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, and James Layton, Joseph P. Bindbeutel, and Douglas E. Nelson, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General of their respective jurisdictions as follows: Bruce M. Botelho of Alaska, Calvin E. Holloway of Guam, Chris Gorman of Kentucky, Frankie Sue Del Papa of Nevada, Tom Udall of New Mexico, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, Robert A. Butterworth of Florida, Carla Stolla of Kansas, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana,

Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist

McKaskle v. Wiggins

Criminal Procedure, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Majority, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975), this Court recognized a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to conduct his own defense. The Court also held that a trial court may appoint “standby counsel” to assist the pro se defendant in his defense. Today we must decide what role standby counsel who is present at trial over the defendant’s objection may play consistent with the protection of the defendant’s Faretta rights.

I

Carl Edwin Wiggins was convicted of robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment as a recidivist. His conviction was set aside because of a defective indictment. When Wiggins was retried, he was again convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. Standby counsel were appointed to assist Wiggins at both trials. Wiggins now challenges counsel’s participation in his second trial.

Prior to the first trial, a hearing was held on Wiggins’ motion to proceed pro se. The court granted the motion, Record 4a, but simultaneously appointed two attorneys to act as standby counsel. Wiggins initially objected to their presence. Id. at 11a. Shortly thereafter, however, counsel asked Wiggins how they should conduct themselves at trial, and Wiggins expressly requested that they bring appropriate objections directly to the attention of the court, without first consulting him. Id. at 37a. After the trial, newly appointed counsel discovered that the original indictment was defective, and a new trial was granted.

On April

Dissent, Due Process, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist

Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams

Dissent, Due Process, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist / By

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE POWELL and JUSTICE REHNQUIST join, dissenting.

Today, the Court departs significantly from its prior decisions and holds that, before the State conducts any proceeding that will affect the legally protected property interests of any party, the State must provide notice to that party by means certain to ensure actual notice as long as the party’s identity and location are “reasonably ascertainable.” Ante at 462 U. S. 800. Applying this novel and unjustified principle to the present case, the Court decides that the mortgagee involved deserved more than the notice by publication and posting that were provided. I dissent because the Court’s approach is unwarranted both as a general rule and as the rule of this case.

I

In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 339 U. S. 314 (1950), the Court established that

[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.

We emphasized that notice is constitutionally adequate when “the practicalities and peculiarities of the case… are reasonably met,” id. at 339 U. S. 314 -315. See also Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U. S. 112, 352 U. S. 115 (1956); Schroeder v. New York City, 371 U. S. 208, 371 U. S. 211 -212 (1962); Greene v. Lindsey, 456