Baker Botts L.L.P. v. Asarco LLC

Issues: Bankruptcy Law

United States Supreme Court BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. ET AL. v. ASARCO LLC, (2015) 135 S.Ct. 2158 (2015) No. 14-103 Argued: February 25, 2015????Decided: June 15, 2015 Syllabus Respondent ASARCO LLC hired petitioner law firms pursuant to ?327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to assist it in carrying out its duties as a Chapter 11 debtor in […]

Read More

B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Intellectual Property, Trademarks

United States Supreme Court B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC., DBA SEALTITE BUILDING FASTENERS ET AL., ET AL., (2015) No. 13-352 Argued: December 2, 2014????Decided: March 24, 2015 Syllabus Respondent Hargis Industries, Inc. (Hargis), tried to register its trademark for SEALTITE with the United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to the Lanham Act. […]

Read More

ARMSTRONG v. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC., 575 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Constitutional Law, Supremacy Clause

United States Supreme Court ARMSTRONG ET AL. v. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC., ET AL., (2015) No. 14-15 575 U.S. ___ (2015);?135 S.Ct. 1378 (2015) Argued: January 20, 2015????Decided: March 31, 2015 Syllabus:?Providers of “habilitation services” under Idaho’s Medicaid plan are reimbursed by the State’s Department of Health and Welfare. Section 30(A) of the Medicaid Act […]

Read More

Arizona State Legislature v. AIRC, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Article I, Elections Clause

ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE v. ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION ET AL., (2015) United States Supreme Court No. 13-1314 576 U.S. ___ (2015); 135 S. Ct. 2652; 192 L. Ed. 2d 704 Argued: March 2, 2015????Decided: June 29, 2015 Syllabus:?Under Arizona’s Constitution, the electorate shares lawmaking authority on equal footing with the Arizona Legislature. The voters may […]

Read More

Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Ill.

ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS, (2015) 136 S. Ct. 447 (2015); 193 L. Ed. 2d 483 United States Supreme Court No. 15-133 Argued: ????Decided: December 7, 2015 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. […]

Read More

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS v. ALABAMA

Issues: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Voting Rights Act of 1965

United States Supreme Court No. 13-895 Argued: November 12, 2014????Decided: March 25, 2015Syllabus:?In 2012 Alabama redrew the boundaries of the State’s 105 House districts and 35 Senate districts. In doing so, while Alabama sought to achieve numerous traditional districting objectives–e.g., compactness, not splitting counties or precincts, minimizing change, and protecting incumbents–it placed yet greater importance […]

Read More

ALABAMA DEPT. OF REVENUE v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., 575 U.S. 21 (2015)

Issues: Commerce Clause, Railroad Revitalization and Regulation Reform Act

135 S.Ct. 1136 (2015) 575 U.S. 21 ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al., Petitioners v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. No. 13-553.Supreme Court of United States.Argued December 9, 2014.Decided March 4, 2015.  Headnotes RAILROAD REVITALIZATION AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 1976 Discriminatory State Sales and Use Taxes — Taxation of Rail Carrier’s Diesel Fuel Purchases — Motor […]

Read More

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Truth in Lending Act

No. 13-684. Larry D. JESINOSKI, et ux., Petitioners v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., et al. 135 S.Ct. 790 (2015); 574 U.S. __ (2015) Supreme Court of the United States: Argued November 4, 2014; Decided January 13, 2015. Petitioner’s Perspective QUESTION PRESENTED The Truth in Lending Act provides that a borrower ?shall have the right to […]

Read More

Whitfield v. United States, 574 U.S. ___ (2015)

Issues: Criminal Law, Kidnapping

Larry WHITFIELD, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES. No. 13-9026. 135 S.Ct. 785 (2015);?574 U.S. ___ (2015) Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 2, 2014;?Decided January 13, 2015. One-Sentence Takeaway The kidnapping provision of 18 U.S.C.?? 2113(e) applies?when a robber forces another person to go somewhere with him or her, even if that movement is within […]

Read More