Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (decided April 23, 2008): not a Fourth Amendment violation to arrest rather than issue summons as required by state law (for driving with suspended license) (drugs found incident to arrest) if police had independent “probable cause” suspicion (though I can’t find anything in the opinion that indicates why police had probable cause)
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. --- (decided April 23, 2020): can recover profits from infringed trademark (Lanham Act) even when infringement was unintentional (magnetic snap fasteners for handbags, recently very trendy) https://fineartamerica.com/featured/new-yorker-september-24th-2007-paul-noth.html?product=metal-print
Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (decided April 23, 2003): ineffective assistance of counsel argument (did not ask for continuance to evaluate surprise evidence as to bullet found in victim’s car) can be raised on motion to attack sentence, 28 U.S.C. §2255, even though not raised on direct appeal
Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (decided April 23, 2001): “I hear that making love to you is like making love to the Grand Canyon.” Not a tactful comment to make to a female co-worker (at least one who isn’t Storm Large). But no evidence that she was punished for complaining about this (though I hope the commenter got some serious grief). Title VII retaliation suit dismissed.
Holly Farms Corp. v. NLRB, 517 U.S. 392 (decided April 23, 1996): NLRB reasonably held (Chevron deference) that truckers hauling chickens to slaughter were not “agricultural workers” exempt from NLRB jurisdiction; therefore they’re entitled to union representation
Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (decided April 23, 1985): This is a weird case. The Secretary of Labor claimed a non-profit violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by underpaying its employees, even though the people at issue denied they were employees but just volunteers, being former drug addicts and “derelicts” who built and staffed facilities in return for food and shelter. The Court agrees with the Secretary, based on the dollar value of what was provided. The non-profit was ordered to provide back pay, and litigation went on for years, with the IRS eventually seizing the properties. (The Alamos led a cult and there was sexual abuse going on, which might have provoked enforcement.)
Florida v. Meyers, 466 U.S. 380 (decided April 23, 1984): no warrant needed for more extensive search of car impounded after arrest following admittedly valid search (strip of cloth found matching victim’s description of what she had been tied down with during rape)
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (decided April 23, 1974): White man sued law school claiming he was denied admission due to race (of the 37 black applicants who got admitted, 36 had lower LSAT’s than him). He won a preliminary injunction to admit him. By the time the case got the Court, he was in his last semester. Court dismisses case as moot; 5 - 4 decision; dissent (led by Douglas) notes the Constitutional questions that should be ruled on (the Court apparently did not think this was one of those “capable of repetition yet evading review” cases).
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (decided April 23, 2013): “social sharing” of marijuana (i.e., possession) is not an “aggravated felony” requiring deportation under Immigration and Naturalization Act of Jamaican national (good thing -- otherwise half the college-age Jamaican population of this country would be deported, to hear my dormmate from 1976 tell it -- the one whose wall was plastered with posters of Bob Marley in various clouds of smoke -- “he is seeing God”)
Forncrook v. Root, 127 U.S. 176 (decided April 23, 1888): dispute between beekeepers as to who first devised an improved “honey frame” (prefabricated so that one doesn’t have to fit pieces together, laboriously and inaccurately -- a diagram is in the opinion), and as to whether this is too obvious to be patentable; court affirms verdict for Root (who allegedly started using his model in 1873) against Forncrook (whose patent application was submitted in 1879) (notice I didn’t make any jokes about a “sweet” result, “swarming” sales or “stinging” accusations -- whoops I just did)
Comments