Volume 495 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 495 of the United States Reports:

New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed whether a confession obtained at a police station is admissible when the arrest was made illegally inside the suspect’s home without a warrant—violating Payton v. New York. Bernard Harris was arrested in his apartment without a warrant though police had probable cause for the murder of Thelma Staton. When the police came to his apartment Harris willingly let them in and after being read his Miranda Rights, Harris answered questions at his house before being taken to the police station for more questioning. Harris gave a written confession at the police station and the confession at the police station was what was used to convict him.

by the Court In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the District Court found that the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) and petitioner State had operated a segregated school system within… Held: The State's certiorari petition was timely filed. The Court of Appeals appears to have interpreted and actually treated the State's papers as including a petition for rehearing before the panel.

In connection with petitioner Venegas' civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he and respondent Mitchell, an attorney, entered into… Held: Section 1988 does not invalidate contingent-fee contracts that would require a prevailing plaintiff to pay his attorney more than the statutory award against the defendant. Neither the section's language nor its legislative history supports the view that it prevents an attorney and client from entering into a contingent-fee agreement.

Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), is a landmark search and seizure case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7–2 decision, the court held that a person staying as a guest in the house of another had a legal expectation of privacy, and that a warrantless entry into that house to arrest the person tainted the arrest and the individual's subsequent statements.

Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. In doing so, the Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber, which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia, which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes.

Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court Case that held that the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments do not require mandatory appellate review of death penalty cases and that individuals cannot file cases as a next friend unless there is a prior relationship to the appellant and unless the appellant is "unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lack of access to court, or other similar disability".

Petitioners filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents—the Guam Government, the Guam Police Department and its Director in her official… Held: Neither the Territory of Guam nor its officers acting in their official capacities are "persons" under § 1983. Pp. 186-192. (a) Since § 1983's language affords no clue as to whether "person" includes a Territory, indicia of congressional intent at the time of enactment must be sought. Pp. 186-187.

Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that a successor copyright owner (one who obtains ownership later on, such as the heirs of a copyright owner who dies) has the exclusive right to permit the creation and exploitation of derivative works, regardless of potentially conflicting agreements by prior copyright holders.

During a criminal investigation, the Government secured a series of court orders authorizing electronic surveillance of respondents, as mandated by Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe… Held: Section 2518(8)(a) applies to a delay in sealing as well as to a complete failure to seal tapes.

Shortly after respondent American Stores Co., the fourth largest supermarket chain in California, acquired all of the outstanding stock of the largest chain, the State filed suit in the District… Held: Divestiture is a form of "injunctive relief" authorized by § 16. Pp. 278-296.

Petitioner Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp. (PATH) is an entity created by New York and New Jersey to operate certain transportation facilities. Held: The statutory consent to suit provision, as elucidated by the venue provision, establishes the States' waiver of any Eleventh Amendment immunity that might otherwise bar respondents' suits against PATH. It is appropriate here to assume, arguendo, that PATH is a state agency entitled to the States' sovereign immunity.

After respondent Stokes was convicted and sentenced to death in Missouri, he filed three unsuccessful habeas corpus petitions in the federal courts. Held: The District Court abused its discretion in granting the stay. A stay of execution pending disposition of a second or successive federal habeas petition can be granted only when there are substantial grounds upon which relief can be granted.

Petitioner Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), an integrated oil company, increased its retail gasoline sales and market share by encouraging its dealers to match the prices of independents such as… Held: Actionable "antitrust injury" is an injury of the type the antitrust laws were intended to prevent and that flows from that which makes defendants' acts unlawful.

1 Respondents, deceased miners' survivors, filed a state-law wrongful-death action in Idaho state court against petitioner United Steelworkers of America (Union), the miners' exclusive bargaining… Held: 2 1. Respondents' tort claim is pre-empted by § 301. The claim cannot be described as independent of the collective-bargaining agreement, since the Union's representatives were participating in the inspection process pursuant to that agreement's provisions.

United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that interpreted the Origination Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court was asked to rule on whether a statute that imposed mandatory monetary penalties on persons convicted of federal misdemeanors was enacted in violation of that clause, as the lower court had held.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, petitioner Hughey pleaded guilty to using one unauthorized MBank credit card. Held: A VWPA restitution award is authorized only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction. Pp. 415-422. (a) VWPA's plain language clearly links restitution to the offense of conviction.

Held: however, that any regulation with this avowed purpose is insulated from review under the federal immunity doctrine or any other constitutional ground, including the dormant Commerce Clause. Nor have we ever upheld such a regulation, or any state regulation of liquor that clashed with some federal law or operation, on the basis *451 of a “presumption of validity.” Cf. ante, at 433.

Davis v. United States, 495 U.S. 472 (1990), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. It concerned claims made by parents of two missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that their monetary contributions toward their sons' mission expenses constituted a "charitable contribution" under provisions of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-1(g) (1989), a position that lower courts had rejected. In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled that these contributions could not be seen as "charitable contributions" under provisions of that statute.

Pursuant to the Federal Power Act (FPA), respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license authorizing the operation in California of a hydroelectric project, which draws, and… Held: The California requirements for minimum stream flows cannot be given effect and allowed to supplement the federal flow requirements. Pp. 496-507.

Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court decision holding that: "the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted."

The Internal Revenue Code requires employers to withhold from their employees' paychecks money representing the employees' personal income and Social Security taxes. 26 U.S.C. §§ 3102(a), 3402(a). Held: A bankruptcy court has the authority to order the IRS to treat tax payments made by Chapter 11 debtor corporations as trust fund payments where the court determines that this designation is necessary for the success of a reorganization plan.

Respondents pleaded guilty to welfare fraud and were ordered by a Pennsylvania court, as a condition of probation, to make monthly restitution payments to petitioner county probation department for… Held: The Code's language and structure demonstrate that restitution obligations constitute "debts" within the meaning of § 101(11) and are therefore dischargeable under Chapter 13. Pp. 557-564.

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that filled in an important gap in the federal criminal law of sentencing. The federal criminal code does not contain a definition of many crimes, including burglary, the crime at issue in this case. Yet sentencing enhancements applicable to federal crimes allow for the enhancement of a defendant's sentence if he has been convicted of prior felonies.

Burnham v. Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case addressing whether a state court may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of the state who is served with process while temporarily visiting the state. All nine justices unanimously agreed that this basis for personal jurisdiction—known as "transient jurisdiction"—is constitutionally permissible. However, the Court failed to produce a majority opinion, as the members were sharply divided on the reasons for the decision, reflecting two fundamentally different approaches to how due-process issues are to be analyzed. Justice Scalia wrote the lead opinion, joined in whole or part by three other Justices.

During collective bargaining, petitioner schools, which are owned and operated by the Army at a military facility, declined to negotiate with respondent Fort Stewart Association of Educators (Union)… Held: The Authority did not err in ruling that petitioner was required to bargain over the Union's proposals. Pp. 644-657.

Respondent Wells Fargo Asia Limited (WFAL), a Singapore-chartered bank wholly owned by a United States-chartered bank, agreed to make two time deposits in Eurodollars— i.e., United States dollars… Held: The Court of Appeals' factual premise that the parties agreed to permit collection from Citibank's New York assets contradicts the District Court's factual determinations, which are not clearly erroneous. Pp. 668-672.

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

Held: nevertheless, that Montalvo-Murillo must be released because there had been a failure to observe the Act’s directions for a timely hearing. § 3142(f). To no one’s great surprise, the suspect became a fugitive after his release and is still at large.