Megan Oshiro

United States Supreme Court (20 summaries)

Murr v. Wisconsin

Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, common ownership of two adjacent lots may be considered as a single property for the purposes of the categorical takings analysis of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U. S. 1003, 1014 (1992) and the regulatory takings inquiry of Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 124 (1978).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board

When the Merit Systems Protection Board, created under the Civil Service Reform Act, dismisses a mixed case on jurisdictional grounds, the proper forum for review is federal district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San Francisco Cty.

California courts lack specific jurisdiction over nonresidents’ claims when there is an insufficient connection between the forum and the claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Jenkins v. Hutton

The Sixth Circuit was incorrect in holding that it could review Respondent’s claim, that the trial court violated his due process rights during the penalty phase of his trial, under the miscarriage of justice exception to procedural default.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Advocate Health Care Network, et al. v. Stapleton, et al.

A pension plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a “church plan,” regardless of who established it, and is exempt from ERISA’s requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, Attorney General

For statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” requires the age of the victim to be less than 16 years.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon

The Hague Service Convention allows for service of process by mail.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Kindred Nursing Centers, L. P. v. Clark

The Kentucky Supreme Court’s clear-statement rule that a power of attorney does not allow a representative to enter into an arbitration agreement without expressly providing that the representative may do so violates the Federal Arbitration Agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Manrique v. United States

When a defendant seeks appellate review of an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case, the defendant must file a notice of appeal from that order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Moore v. Texas

When evaluating an individual’s intellectual capacity to enforce the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of the execution of intellectually disabled individuals, a State must look to the medical community’s diagnostic framework.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.

When distributing an estate’s assets under a structured dismissal of the Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11, the bankruptcy court cannot deviate from basic priority rules that apply under the Code without consent of the affected creditors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado

If a juror makes a statement that exhibits overt racial bias and casts serious doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the jury’s deliberations, then the no-impeachment rule must give way to allow the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Et. Al. v. Apple Inc.

When determining a damages award for patent infringement under section 289 of the Patent Act, the relevant “article of manufacture” does not solely refer to the product sold to consumers but can also refer to components of the product.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Visa Inc., Et Al. v. Osborn, Sam, Et Al And Visa Inc., Et Al. v. Stoumbos, Mary, Et Al.

Whether allegations that a member of a business association adhered to the association’s rules and possessed governance rights in the association are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Richard Mathis v. United States

If, for purposes of determining penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the court finds that a defendant was previously convicted under a statute with alternative means of satisfying one element of a crime, then the court shall determine whether the elements of the prior conviction, and not the facts of the records except for limited circumstances, sufficiently match the elements of the Act’s generic crimes

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Taylor v. United States

The prosecution in a Hobbs Act case satisfies the Act’s commerce element when it proves that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob a drug dealer of drugs or drug proceeds.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar

The implied false certification theory of the False Claims Act can be a basis for liability when a defendant makes representations about the goods or services that it provides, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material legal requirements that make those representations misleading half-truths. Liability does not turn on whether the requirements are expressly designated as conditions of payment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Luis M. Sanchez Valle

Pursuant to the dual-sovereignty doctrine, the United States and Puerto Rico may not prosecute a single person for the same offense under analogous criminal laws.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Green v. Brennan

In a constructive discharge claim, the “matter alleged to be discriminatory” includes an employee’s resignation and therefore, the 45-day limitation period begins to run only after the employee resigns.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC

A judgment on the merits is not necessary to find that a defendant has prevailed for the purposes of determining whether a defendant can recover attorney’s fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (8 summaries)

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Whether a Minnesota Statute that bans voters from wearing any political badge, political button, or other political insignia at the polling place is facially overbroad under the First Amendment?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

United States v. Microsoft Corporation

Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2703 to disclose material that the provider stored abroad.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Hall, Elsa v. Hall, Samuel, et al.

Whether, in single district consolidated cases, the entry of a final judgement in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC

Whether inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding used by the Patent and Trademark Office to determine the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitutional right to an Article III forum and a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Artis v. District of Columbia

Whether the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statute of limitation period while a state-law claim is pending in federal court and for an additional 30 days after it is dismissed, or whether the statute of limitation period continues running while the state-law claim is pending in federal court but the plaintiff has a 30-day grace period to refile that state-law claim after it is dismissed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Class v. United States

Whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he or she was convicted?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

Whether a patentee’s post-sale restrictions on the use or sale of its patented articles allows the patentee to avoid the doctrine of exhaustion upon first sale. Also, whether the doctrine of exhaustion applies when a U.S. patentee sells its articles abroad?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Gloucester County School Board v. G. G.

Whether an agency’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 should be afforded deference pursuant to Auer v. Robbins, when that interpretation requires schools to allows transgender students the use of facilities on the basis of their gender identity and the interpretation was unpublished and issued solely in response to the present controversy?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law