Volume 500 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 500 of the United States Reports:

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), is a 1991 case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of an arbitration clause to compel arbitration of statutory Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 claims. A regional brokerage house, Interstate Johnson Lane later became part of Wachovia Securities.

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody. The majority held that suspects must generally be granted a probable cause determination within 48 hours of arrest. The dissent believed that probable cause hearings should generally be provided much sooner, as soon as the police complete the administrative steps incident to arrest.

1 and are respondents here. Respondent Institutes for Behavior Resources (IBR) is a private entity that owns the monkeys. 1 Respondent NIH now maintains custody of the monkeys, with IBR's consent. Respondent Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund (Tulane) is the governing body for the primate research center that, in 1986, entered into an agreement with NIH to care for the monkeys.

Petitioner Kamen is a shareholder of respondent Cash Equivalent Fund, Inc. (Fund), a mutual fund whose investment adviser is respondent Kemper Financial Services, Inc.… Held: A court entertaining a derivative action under the ICA must apply the demand futility exception as it is defined by the law of the State of incorporation. Pp. 95-109. (a) The scope of the demand requirement determines when a shareholder can initiate corporate litigation against the directors' wishes.

Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the petitioner, Bryan Lankford, had been unconstitutionally sentenced to death in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held 5–4 that Lankford had not received adequate notice that he could be sentenced to death before the trial judge imposed such a sentence on him, and therefore reversed the prior ruling to the contrary by the Idaho Supreme Court.

Petitioner brought a District Court suit against various state prison officials alleging that, in violation of his constitutional rights, they used excessive force when transferring him from one… Held: Section 636(b)(1)(B) does not, as petitioner contends, permit nonconsensual referrals to a magistrate only when a prisoner challenges ongoing prison conditions, but encompasses cases alleging a specific episode of unconstitutional conduct by prison administrators. Pp. 138-144.

Michigan's "rape-shield" statute generally prohibits a criminal defendant from introducing at trial evidence of an alleged rape victim's past sexual conduct. Held: a state court refused to let him introduce, at his bench trial on charges of criminal sexual assault, evidence of a prior sexual relationship with the victim, his ex-girlfriend.

The Controlled Substances Act authorizes the Attorney General, upon compliance with specified procedures, to add new drugs to five… Held: Section 201(h) does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the Attorney General. Pp. 164-169. (a) The nondelegation doctrine does not prevent Congress from seeking assistance from a coordinate Branch, so long as it lays down an "intelligible principle" to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform.

Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a case in the United States Supreme Court that upheld Department of Health and Human Services regulations prohibiting employees in federally funded family-planning facilities from counseling a patient on abortion. The department had removed all family planning programs involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 opinion, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act, and that the First Amendment is not violated when the government merely chooses to "fund one activity to the exclusion of another".

In seeking to become "credentialed" in his new job at an Army hospital, petitioner Siegert, a clinical psychologist, asked his former employer, a federal hospital, to provide job performance and… Held: The Court of Appeals properly concluded that the District Court should have dismissed Siegert's suit because he had not overcome Gilley's qualified immunity defense.

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (1991), was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the exclusionary rule of evidence under the Fourth Amendment.

Petitioner McCormick, a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates in 1984, was a leading advocate of a legislative program allowing foreign medical school graduates to practice under temporary… Held: The Court of Appeals erred in affirming McCormick's conviction under the Hobbs Act, because a quid pro quo is necessary for a conviction when an official receives a campaign contribution, regardless of whether it is a legitimate contribution. Pp. 268-275.

When petitioner Farrey and respondent Sanderfoot divorced, a Wisconsin court awarded each one-half of their marital estate. Held: Section 522(f)(1) requires a debtor to have possessed an interest to which a lien attached, before it attached, to avoid the fixing of a lien on that interest.

Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Bankruptcy Code's Section 522(f) allows a judicial lien to be eliminated even when a state's bankruptcy policy has defined exempt property to exclude property encumbered by a judicial lien.

Respondent Pinhas, an ophthalmologist on the staff of petitioner Midway Hospital Medical Center, filed a suit in the District Court, asserting a violation, inter alia, of § 1 of the Sherman Act by… Held: Pinhas' allegations satisfy the Act's jurisdictional requirements. To be successful, Pinhas need not allege an actual effect on interstate commerce.

At a hearing at which petitioner Braxton pleaded guilty to assault and firearm counts, but not guilty to the more serious charge of attempting to kill a United States marshal, the Government… Held: The court below misapplied the § 1B1.2(a) proviso. Pp. 346-351. (a) This Court will not resolve the question whether Braxton's guilty plea "contain[ed] a stipulation" within the proviso's meaning.

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that a prosecutor may dismiss jurors who are bilingual in Spanish and English from juries that will consider Spanish-language testimony.

In a dispute between Illinois and Kentucky over their common boundary, the Special Master has recommended that this Court determine the boundary to be the "low-water mark on the northerly side… Held: The boundary is the line of the low-water mark as it was in 1792. Pp. 383-388. (a) This is the rule that was used to determine the boundary between Kentucky and its neighboring States of Ohio, Ohio v. Kentucky, 444 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 588, 62 L.Ed.2d 530, and Indiana, Indiana v.

Petitioner Yates and Henry Davis robbed a South Carolina grocery store owned by Willie Wood. Held: The State Supreme Court failed to apply the proper harmless-error standard, as stated in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 which held that an error is harmless if it appears "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Pp. 400-407.

Held: nor an impartial jury assembled, see Patton v. Yount, supra, at 1031-1035 ; Murphy v. Florida, supra, at 797-799 . Some of the principal cases cited in our opinions today, for instance, Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966), Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U. S. 723 (1963), and probably Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717 (1961), come within the latter classification.

A pure dose of the hallucinogenic drug LSD is so small that it must be sold to retail customers in a "carrier" created by dissolving pure LSD and, inter… Held: The statute requires the weight of the carrier medium to be included when determining the appropriate sentencing for trafficking in LSD. Pp. 456-464. (a) Since the statute refers to a "mixture or substance containing a detectable amount," the entire mixture or substance is to be weighed when calculating the sentence.

Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case. A prosecutor was absolutely immune from damages based upon positions taken in a probable cause hearing for a search warrant. The same prosecutor was not held entitled to immunity for giving legal advice to the police about the legality of an investigative practice.

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association, 500 U.S. 507 (1991), deals with First Amendment rights and unions in public employment.

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, which interpreted the Carroll doctrine to provide one rule to govern all automobile searches. The Court stated, "The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained." The decision also overruled the distinctions in United States v. Chadwick (1977) and Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) which had previously held that, if probable cause existed to search an automobile, the police may perform a warrantless search of the automobile and the containers within it, but if the police only had probable cause to search a container in the automobile, the police first had to obtain a warrant before searching the container.

Petitioner Exxon Corporation and Waterman Steamship Corporation negotiated a marine fuel requirements contract, in which Exxon agreed to supply Waterman's vessels with fuel when the vessels called at… Held: Because there is no per se exception of agency contracts from admiralty jurisdiction, Minturn is overruled. Minturn is incompatible with current principles of admiralty jurisdiction over contracts.

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, 500 U.S. 614 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on the basis of race in civil trials. Edmonson extended the court's similar decision in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), a criminal case. The Court applied the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as determined in Bolling v. Sharpe (1954), in finding that such race-based challenges violated the Constitution.

Held: however, that when the Attorney General precleared Divisions G, H, and I, he also precleared Division F. The court reasoned that because the legislation creating Divisions G, H, and I added to the number of prior judgeships in Caddo Parish, including Division F, approval of the legislation constituted approval of Division F. 751 F. Supp. 586, 592 , and n. 35 (MD La. 1990).