Volume 521 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 521 of the United States Reports:

Held: must not be a predominant factor in drawing the district lines. Id., at 915-917 . Given the contorted shape of the district and the undue predominance of race in drawing its lines, it was unlikely the district could be redrawn without changing most or all of Georgia’s congressional districts, 11 in total number.

* Respondent Rambo, injured while doing longshore work for petitioner Metropolitan Stevedore Company, received a compensation award under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act… Held: 1.A worker is entitled to nominal compensation under the LHWCA when his work-related injury has not diminished his present wage-earning capacity under current circumstances, but there is a significant potential that the injury will cause diminished capacity under future conditions.

O'Dell v. Netherland, 521 U.S. 151 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the rule of Simmons v. South Carolina, that a capital defendant has the right to have their jury informed of their parole ineligibility where their future dangerousness is put at issue, does not apply retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus review.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) makes it a crime "to conduct'' an "enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.'' 18 U.S.C. §1962(c). Held: 1.The "last predicate act'' rule is not an appropriate interpretation of RICO. Pp. ____-____. (a) Only the Third Circuit's accrual rule can help the Klehrs.

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v. Felton (1985), now finding that it was not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment for a state-sponsored education initiative to allow public school teachers to instruct at religious schools, so long as the material was secular and neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion was apparent. This case is noteworthy in a broader sense as a sign of evolving judicial standards surrounding the First Amendment, and the changes that have occurred in modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coeur d'Alene Tribe could not maintain an action against the state of Idaho to press its claim to Lake Coeur d'Alene due to the state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit, notwithstanding the exception recognized in Ex parte Young. The case was an important precedent for aboriginal title in the United States and sovereign immunity in the United States. After the district court's decision dismissing the suit, the federal government—in its guardian capacity—brought a substantially similar suit against Idaho; in 2001, in 5–4 decision, the Court ruled for the federal government: Idaho v. United States (2001).

Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996's amendments to Title 28, Section 2254 of the United States Code applies to cases filed after the Act's effective date. The amendments "do not apply to pending noncapital cases such as Lindh's."

Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court set forth procedures for the indefinite civil commitment of prisoners who are convicted of a sex offense and are deemed by the state to be dangerous because of a mental abnormality.

* Respondent McKnight, a prisoner at a Tennessee correctional center whose management had been privatized, filed this constitutional tort action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for physical injuries inflicted… Held: Prison guards employed by a private firm are not entitled to a qualified immunity from suit by prisoners charging a §1983 violation. Pp. ____-____. (a) Four aspects of Wyatt v.

* Respondent Buckley was exposed to insulation dust containing asbestos while employed as a pipefitter by petitioner railroad. Held: 1.Buckley cannot recover emotional distress damages unless, and until, he manifests symptoms of a disease. Pp. ____-____. (a) The critical issue is whether Buckley's physical contact with insulation dust amounts to a "physical impact'' as that term was used in Gottshall, an emotional distress case.

Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a government-imposed fee that forced fruit growers to contribute to collective product advertising for the sale of their fruits was an economic policy that did not trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

* Based on the 1990 census, the Florida Legislature adopted a reapportionment plan for State Senate and House districts. Held: 1.The District Court did not err in approving the settlement agreement without formally holding Plan 330 unconstitutional. Pp. ____-____. (a) State redistricting responsibility should be accorded primacy to the extent possible when a federal court exercises remedial power.

* This case concerns the legitimacy under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a class-action certification sought to achieve global… Held: 1.The class certification issues are dispositive here in that their resolution is logically antecedent to the existence of any Article III issues. This Court therefore declines to resolve objectors' assertions that no justiciable case or controversy is presented and that the exposure-only claimants lack standing to sue.

United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning insider trading and breach of U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10(b) and 10(b)-5. In an opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that an individual may be found liable for violating Rule 10(b)-5 by misappropriating confidential information. The Court also held that the Securities and Exchange Commission did not exceed its rulemaking authority when it adopted Rule 14e-3(a), "which proscribes trading on undisclosed information in the tender offer setting, even in the absence of a duty to disclose".

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9–0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held individual members of Congress do not automatically have standing to litigate the constitutionality of laws affecting Congress as a whole.

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, unanimously ruling that anti-indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) was a copyright lawsuit where the court determined if a copy of an original work's artistic style, plot, themes, and certain key character elements qualified as fair use. Penguin Books published a book titled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice that use the artistic style, themes and characteristics of Dr. Seuss books to tell the story of the O. J. Simpson murder case. Dr. Seuss Enterprises accused the publisher of copyright and trademark infringement.