U.S. Supreme Court Case Commentaries

Exclusive Judicial Review Pathway Established by Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Date: Jun 12, 2012

Exclusive Judicial Review Pathway Established by Elgin v. Department of the Treasury Introduction Elgin v. Department of the Treasury, 132 S.Ct. 2126 (2012), is a landmark decision by the United...

Reinforcement of AEDPA’s Deferential Standards in Parker v. Matthews

Date: Jun 12, 2012

Reinforcement of AEDPA’s Deferential Standards in Parker v. Matthews Introduction Philip Parker, Warden v. David Eugene Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012), is a significant decision by the United States...

Exclusive Judicial Review under the Civil Service Reform Act: Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Date: Jun 12, 2012

Exclusive Judicial Review under the Civil Service Reform Act: Elgin v. Department of the Treasury Introduction Michael B. Elgin, et al. v. Department of the Treasury et al. (567 U.S. 1, 2012) is a...

Exclusive Judicial Review under CSRA: Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Date: Jun 12, 2012

Exclusive Judicial Review under Civil Service Reform Act: Insights from Elgin v. Department of the Treasury Introduction In the landmark case Michael B. Elgin, et al. v. Department of the Treasury et...

Supreme Court Establishes Qualified Immunity Standard for Retaliatory Arrests Involving First Amendment Claims

Date: Jun 5, 2012

Supreme Court Establishes Qualified Immunity Standard for Retaliatory Arrests Involving First Amendment Claims Introduction In the landmark case of Reichle et al. v. Howards, the United States...

Qualified Immunity Affirmed in Retaliatory Arrest with Probable Cause: Reichle v. Howard

Date: Jun 5, 2012

Qualified Immunity Affirmed in Retaliatory Arrest with Probable Cause: Reichle v. Howard Introduction In Reichle v. Howard, the United States Supreme Court addressed a pivotal issue concerning the...

Rational Basis Upheld for Differential Sewer Assessment Policies: Armour v. Indianapolis

Date: Jun 5, 2012

Rational Basis Upheld for Differential Sewer Assessment Policies: Armour v. Indianapolis Introduction In Christine Armour, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana, et al. (566 U.S. 673, 2012), the...

Rational Basis for Tax Classification Under Equal Protection: Armour v. City of Indianapolis

Date: Jun 5, 2012

Rational Basis for Tax Classification Under Equal Protection: Armour v. City of Indianapolis 1. Introduction Armour et al. v. City of Indianapolis, Indiana, 132 S.Ct. 2073 (2012), is a pivotal United...

Enforcing Credit-Bidding Rights in Bankruptcy: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank

Date: May 30, 2012

Enforcing Credit-Bidding Rights in Bankruptcy: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank Introduction The Supreme Court's decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, 132 S.Ct....

Supreme Court Reinforces Deferential Standard for AEDPA Habeas Corpus Reviews in Coleman v. Johnson

Date: May 30, 2012

Supreme Court Reinforces Deferential Standard for AEDPA Habeas Corpus Reviews in Coleman v. Johnson Introduction In the case of Brian Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at...

Mandatory Credit-Bidding for Secured Creditors in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cramdown Plans

Date: May 30, 2012

Mandatory Credit-Bidding for Secured Creditors in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cramdown Plans Introduction In the landmark case RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, et al. v. Amalgamated Bank, decided on May 29,...

Fee Splitting Must Be Demonstrated to Violate RESPA §2607(b): Supreme Court Establishes Clear Precedent

Date: May 25, 2012

Fee Splitting Must Be Demonstrated to Violate RESPA §2607(b): Supreme Court Establishes Clear Precedent Introduction In the landmark case Tammy Foret FREEMAN et al. v. QUICKEN LOANS, Inc., the U.S....

Limitations on Prohibition of Earned Fees under RESPA: Freeman v. Quicken Loans

Date: May 25, 2012

Limitations on Prohibition of Earned Fees under RESPA: Freeman v. Quicken Loans Introduction FREEMAN v. QUICKEN LOANS, INC. is a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on May 24, 2012. The...

Double Jeopardy in Mistrial Cases: Insights from Blueford v. Arkansas

Date: May 25, 2012

Double Jeopardy in Mistrial Cases: Insights from Blueford v. Arkansas Introduction Blueford v. Arkansas (566 U.S. 599, 2012) is a landmark Supreme Court case that delves into the intricacies of the...

Interpreters vs. Translators: Defining Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Date: May 22, 2012

Interpreters vs. Translators: Defining Taxable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) Introduction The Supreme Court case Kouichi TANIGUCHI v. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD., dba Marianas Resort and Spa addresses...

BIA's Non-Imputation of Parental Residence in Cancellation of Removal: Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez

Date: May 22, 2012

BIA's Non-Imputation of Parental Residence in Cancellation of Removal: Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez Introduction Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez (2012) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that addresses the...

No Imputation of Parental Residence or LPR Status under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a)

Date: May 22, 2012

No Imputation of Parental Residence or LPR Status under 8 U.S.C. §1229b(a) Introduction The Supreme Court case Holder, Attorney General v. Martinez Gutierrez and Holder, Attorney General v. Sawyers...

State Intestacy Law Governs Survivors Benefits for Posthumously Conceived Children: Asture v. Capato

Date: May 22, 2012

State Intestacy Law Governs Survivors Benefits for Posthumously Conceived Children: Asture v. Capato Introduction Asture v. Capato is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that...

Defining 'Child' in Posthumous Conceptions: Astrue v. Capato

Date: May 22, 2012

Defining 'Child' in Posthumous Conceptions: Astrue v. Capato Introduction The Supreme Court case Astrue v. Capato addresses a pivotal issue in Social Security law: the eligibility of posthumously...

Defining “Interpreter” in Cost Recovery: Supreme Court Clarifies Oral Translation Only under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6)

Date: May 22, 2012

Defining “Interpreter” in Cost Recovery: Supreme Court Clarifies Oral Translation Only under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) Introduction In the landmark case Kouichi TANIGUCHI v. KAN PACIFIC SAIPAN, LTD., the...

Previous Next