United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in January 2015

M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett

Collectively bargained for benefit agreements should be interpreted under ordinary principles of contract law without undue inferences into the intent of the parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Dept. of Homeland Security v. MacLean

Disclosure of sensitive security information to the media prohibited by a promulgated federal regulation is not a disclosure prohibited by law under the whistleblower protections of 5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Gelboim v. Bank of America

When a case that is part of a consolidated proceedings in multidistrict litigation is dismissed on the merits, the district court has made a final decision that to remove the case from the consolidated proceedings and the case may be appealed under § 1291.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hana Financial, Inc, v. Hana Bank, et. al.

Trademark priority should be considered a factual question to be determined by a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Christeson v. Roper

Substitution of a habeas petitioner’s appointed counsel is permissible pursuant to Martel. v. Clair when appointed counsel faces a conflict of interest due to appointed counsel’s possible malfeasance in abandonment of petitioner’s case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Holt v.Hobbs

RLUIPA does not allow a Department of Corrections to enforce a policy that prohibits an inmate from growing a half inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

When reviewing a district court’s analysis of factual matters made in advocation of a patent claim, a court must apply a “clear error” instead of a de novo standard.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Jennings v. Stephens

Petitioner seeking habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel under two Wiggins theories was not required to file cross-appeal to preserve a Spisak claim because it would not enlarge Petitioner’s rights nor diminish the rights of the State under a District Court’s judgment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell

Under § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a locality must state the reasoning for the denial of an application, and that reasoning may be issued in another written record so long as it is "essentially contemporaneously" with the denial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Under the Truth In Lending Act a borrower only needs to give written notice to his lender within three years when the borrower chooses to rescind a loan; the borrower does not need to file a lawsuit.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Whitfield v. United States

The word "accompany" in 18 U.S.C. §2113, which creates increased penalties for actions taken during the commission of, or flight from, a bank robbery, means "to go with" even over short distances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top