Millbrook v. United States

     In the Supreme Court case Millbrook v. United States, a man by the name of Kim Millbrook said that one of the guards of the Federal Bureau of Prisons sexually assaulted and verbally threatened him while he was in their custody. "He alleged that, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), the BOP would be liable if he succeeded on his claims of assault and battery. The Government moved to dismiss based on the so-called "intentional tort exception" to the FTCA, § 2680(h), which immunizes the United States from suits for intentional torts, including assault and battery. In response, Millbrook relied on the "law enforcement proviso" to the FTCA, which extends the waiver of sovereign immunity to intentional torts (including assault and battery) based on the 'acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers.'"
The Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in saying that " in the plain language of the "law enforcement proviso" limits its application to acts of law enforcement officers occurring in the course of investigative or law enforcement activities. The Court explained that the FTCA by its terms focuses on the "status of persons whose conduct may be actionable, not the types of activities that may give rise to a tort claim against the United States." In other words, the FTCA's text did not limit the waiver of sovereign immunity to intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers who were executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. So long as the officer was acting within the scope of his employment and was a "law enforcement officer" as defined by the FTCA, the "law enforcement proviso" applied to waive the United States' sovereign immunity. "

http://www.faegrebd.com/19729



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/supreme-court-agrees-with-prisoners-handwritten-appeal-in-assault-case/

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (linked with Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital)

This case has to do with whether physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies have the right to sue California of it's cuts to Medicaid payments. California reduced reimbursements for Medicaid in 2008 and 2009. Medical providers challenged this decisions but they were blocked by the district courts preliminary injunctions.

"The 9th Circuit upheld the injunctions, finding that the state failed to conduct sufficient studies before cutting the rates. California appealed to the Supreme Court." The Argue date was October 3, 2011. The decision was made February 22, 2012. When the decision was made, 5 vacated and 4 remanded.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Inc.

This case deals with the dozens that want to hold oil companies for human rights issues from the 1990's that took place in Nigeria.  It has to do with abuses that happened abroad. "The plaintiffs allege the oil giants conspired with the government to stop protests over petroleum exploration, using killings, rape, arrests, and property destruction. Shell has denied giving soldiers any money, supplies, or logistical help." In 2004 the high court endorsed ATS with limited circumstances.

The case was ordered re-heard with hopes of refocusing the limits of the laws, "whether it can be applied extraterritorially for violations occurring overseas." If the Supreme court decides against the plaintiffs, there could be an end to ATS litigation. "A Supreme Court decision against the plaintiffs could effectively end ATS litigation. Similar lawsuits involve Chevron and Exxon energy operations in Indonesia; Chiquita Brand fruit farms in Colombia; and businesses that operated years ago in the now-outlawed apartheid system in South Africa."

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html#humanrights

California ballot measure: Hollingsworth v. Perry

Holilingsworth v. Perry is debating the Constitution's 14th amendment and whether equal protection in certain states means marriage is to be between only a man and a woman or if same sex marriage is allowed."The "Prop 8" case, as it has become known, has been down a complicated legal road. California's Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages were legal in 2008. After the statewide ballot measure banning them passed with 52% of the vote later that year, gay and lesbian marriages were put on hold. Then a federal appeals court in San Francisco in February ruled the measure unconstitutional. In its split decision, the panel found Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage."

Opponents of Prop 8 want a court-ordered expansion of what "traditional" marriage means. Currently there are six states that allow gay marriage. Nine states recognize civil unions or domestic partnership. California is the only state that accepted gay marriage and then revoked it.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Abigail Fisher was senior at a high school in Sugar Land, Texas in 2008. She applied to the University of Texas at Austin and she was denied acceptance. Fisher is challenging the school's race-conscious admissions policies. She is claiming she was denied access because she is white. "The school defends its policy of considering race as one of many factors -- such as test scores, community service, leadership and work experience -- designed to ensure a diverse campus."

This case brings up unresolved questions pertaining to race and schools searching for diversity. "Justice Kagan will not hear this case because she had dealt with the issue while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general. That would leave the possibility of a 4-4 tie, meaning the university would prevail, but no important precedent would be established." Abigail Fisher is pretty much out of luck if she is trying to make a difference.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

      In the Supreme Court case Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., the two shoe companies were suing each other over the design of a shoe. Originally, Nike sued Already first, claiming that they took Nike's patented design of a shoe. Then Already counter sued Nike saying that they did not use their design and that the patent on the shoe was not valid since the patent expired in 2008. Right after Already sued Nike, Nike came back and decided to drop their suit and in addition to that, they said that they would not sue Already based on any future designs based on that patent. Even though Nike had dropped the suit against Already, Already continued with their suit because they thought that Nike said that they were not going to sue them ever again on this one specific shoe design. Already did not read it the right way because what Nike really said was that they would not sue Already in the future about any shoe design made. The Supreme Court decided in Nike's favor since their terms were so board, thus, resulting in Already having to dropped their suit. In the pictures below, you can see how similar the two shoe designs are to each other.

     In my opinion, I think that it was right for Nike to sue because even though their original patent had expired, it was still their design to begin with. I also think that Already could have just come up with a different design for the shoe since it was so identical to the Nike shoe. Once Already counter sued Nike, I think that Nike dropped their suit so fast because they knew that Already had a good case against them. It was also a smart move by Nike to make their terms for dropping the case so board, so that the Supreme Court would agree with them. This decision benefits Already greatly because now they can make almost any shoe design they want that is close to Nike's, and Nike cannot sue them for it. 

Sanchez, Robert. "Are We Done Yet? Nike Thinks It Is Already Time to Move On -IPLJ." IPLJ. Fordham University School of Law, 25 Nov. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

 

Stonebrook, Ian. "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nike Trademark Case." Nice Kicks. N.p., 27 June 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

Gabelli et al. v. Securities and Exchange

      This cases states that Gabelliet and Alpert aided and abetted investment adviser fraud from 1999 until 2002.  Petitioners moved to dismiss the case because it was reaching it's five year statute of limitations.  They pointed out that the complaint alleged illegal activity up until August 2002 but was not filed until April 2008. The Second Circuit reversed the decision to be dismissed because they applied the "discovery rule" meaning that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the SEC dis- covered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud. The SEC’s complaint alleged that Alpert and Gabelli permitted Headstart to engage in market timing in ex- change for Headstart’s investment in a hedge fund run by Gabelli.
      The Supreme Court's final ruling was that they over ruled the Second Circuits decision to reverse the movement to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court said that the SEC is not allowed to use the "discovery rule" to toll the operative statute of limitations. The Court rejected the SEC's argument that the discovery rule should apply to toll the statute of limitations until the Government has discovered its cause of action.  The Gabelli decision will influence enforcement decisions and actions of many different federal agencies. Among other things, the SEC and other agencies will likely seek tolling agreements from parties under investigation much earlier in investigations in order to preserve their ability to investigate suspected misconduct.

Turner v. Clayton/ Breitenfeld vs. Clayton

Turner v. Clayton/ Breitenfeld vs. Clayton

In 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that if the a student in a certain district is failing to be adequately educated, then they may transfer to an adjoining school district. Jane Turner brought up the issue when she realized her children should be going to an accredited school. Once her children transferred, she sued Clayton schools to get back all the money she had previously paid for tuition. "the state's highest court turned the educational establishment upside down by ruling that a state law requires an adjoining district to accept children from an unaccredited district, and that the district where the child resides must pay for the student's education." The school districts have argued that the law violates Hancock Amendment;s "unfunded mandate" provision which says the public can not be forced to take on obligations that are not paid for. "Their failure is all of our failure, both from a purely moral standpoint, and also because as long as the school district in the core of our city can't make the sort of gains that attract young families and businesses, then our entire region suffers economically." Missouri Legislature is working on reform measures.

I do not think either side is right or wrong. I agree that if children are not getting adequate education they should be able to transfer to an accredited school. However, if one student is not getting a good education that means all of his classmates at his school aren't either and if one student transfers than many more will follow. The best thing to do would be to start with the teachers and the curriculum to make sure the school gets accredited. If the school's education is adequate, then the students would have no need to transfer to other schools.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-supreme-court-needs-to-put-children-first-in-school/article_6417f97c-2c05-5e34-ac0c-0b6f895e6e5c.html