United States Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court, United States (fAmerica and Atomic Energy Commission, Petitioners, v. International Union ( Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, et al., Respondents, no. 454, Brief for Petitioners on Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 11 Feb. 1961, pp. 33-90. 

In 1971 the OSHA standard for benzene (20 CFR, Part 1910.0000) adopted a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 10 ppm benzene measured as an 8-h TWA. In October of 1976 NIOSH updated its earlier criteria document on benzene and recommended that OSHA lower the benzene exposure standard from 10 to 1 ppm. This proposed implementation was blocked by the United States Supreme Court iu 1980 on the basis of iusufficient evidence linking benzene to cancer deaths. By the mid-1980s convincing evidence of the carciuogenicity of benzene appeared through animal studies which justified reconsideration of the 1 ppm PEL (130). 

Supreme Court of the United States (1962). Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660. Appeal from the appellate department, Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, No. 554. 

In Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the famous Supreme Court decision on affirmative action in education, the state gave as one justification for racial preferences for minorities in medical school the need to improve minority health care (Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 1978). No justice of the United States Supreme Court bought that argument, for it was... 

Ozawa v. United States 260 U.S. 178,180-185 (1922) Lopez, WhitebyLaw, pp. 80-86 James Lesser, Always Outsiders Asians, Naturalization, and the Supreme Court, Amerasia 12 (1985-86), p. 83. 

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that Ohio s law of trade secrets is not preempted by the patent laws of the United States, and further held (footnotes omitted) ... 

In modem society, a search is premised upon a person s right to privacy, rather than traditional physical trespass. The Amendment protects people, not places. In Katz v. United States [24] the Court rejected the property approach in favor of a privacy approach. The Supreme Court held a nontresspassory eavesdropping into a public telephone booth constituted a search. The Court focused on the privacy aspect of the amendment, rather than applying it to specific location. The Court declined to characterize a telephone booth as a constitutionally protected area. A search occurs when (1) a person s subjective expectation of privacy is invaded providing (2) society is prepared to recognize that expectation is reasonable. The definition of reasonableness is itself determined on a case by case basis [37]. 

While no court, let alone the United States Supreme Court has ruled on the circumstances in which a prisoner can be forced to undergo pharmaco-... 

Not until 1942 did the United States Supreme Court hold that it was unconstitutional to permanently sterilize people convicted of criminal offenses. ... 

Federal legislation for the postwar South led the Supreme Court to its first major confrontation with the Second Amendment. The case of United States V. Cruikshank (1876) arose from the trial of a band of white farmers (and probable KKK members) who had attacked and burned a courthouse... 

In Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court reaffirms its ruling in the Cruik-shank case but also says that states cannot abolish the right of citizens to keep and bear arms because it would deprive the United States of the pool of citizens who make up the reserve militia. ... 

In Moore v. East Cleveland the Supreme Court states (in passing) that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the specific guarantees contained in the Constimtion of the United States, but this ruling is not applied to gun control cases. 

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court notes in passing that the people has a consistent meaning of individuals when used in the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. 

Sprigman, Chris. This Is Not a Well-Regulated Militia. Open Forum, Winter 1994, n.p. Reviews Supreme Court cases and concludes that the Court has interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting state militias, not as an individual right to bear arms. Sprigman cites United States V. Miller (1939) and argues that the militia concept is probably not relevant to modern America. 

The government steadfastly maintains that the Supreme Court s decision in United States v. Miller, 59 S.Ct. 816 (1939), mandated acceptance of the... 

Our view of the meaning of the people, as used in the Constitution, is in harmony with the United States Supreme Court s pronouncement in United States V. Verdugo-Urquidez, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 1060-61 (1990), that ... 

In order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in some instances since the issuance of the Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States declared The Sherman Act does not require competitive bidding. ... 

Medical Use of Marijuana United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, No. 00-151, (2001) U.S. v. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2003 Raich v. Ashcroft, U.S. Supreme Court, 03-15481 (2003)... 

The United States brought an action against defendant Sanchez for recovery of taxes due under the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. This law imposed a tax ranging from 1 to 24 per ounce on sales or transfers of marijuana. If this tax was not paid and the proper paperwork filed, then an additional levy of 100 per ounce tax came into effect. The district court dismissed the government s claim for the tax. The court of appeals, however, reversed that decision, and Sanchez appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

---