Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
113 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Lexmark International |
Recharaterizing "zone of interests" prudential test as one of statutory interpretation rather than one of standing. "really asking if plaintiff falls within class authorized to sue under sec. 1125(a)" |
|
|
Defungis (1974) |
Mootness Started school when initially rejected due to injunction. In 3rd year now.
"capable of reptition yet evading review" Dissent What if he's kicked out? Parties are fully prepped, great public disservice. |
|
|
Pacific Gas (1983) |
Ripeness Nuclear power plant needs permission to start projects based on 2 parts of statute. Need predominately legal, here unclear cannot meet statute requirements yet.
|
|
|
Medimmune v Genentech (2007) |
Ripeness Plaintiff brought suit to check if patent was valid, paid licensing fees meanwhile to avoid treble damages if lost. Court found ripeness. |
|
|
Warth v. Seldin |
Standing Zoning Ordinance keeping low-income out. Standing rejected for 4 classes: 1) Taxpayers 2) Current residents 3) low-income individuals who cannot live here 4) Develoeprs |
|
|
Powell v. McCormack |
Political Question Congressman barred from previous misconduct? Review text of "Qualified" |
|
|
Nixon v. U.S. |
Political Question "sole power to try" Textual commitment to another branch? Manageable standards? Policy Decisions Respect Defer to Fait accompli
|
|
|
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee |
Adeq. and Independent Supreme Court can review state law decisions. |
|
|
Murdock v. City of Memphis |
Adeq. and Independent Supreme Court can review state law decisions supplementally unless adequate and independent grounds. |
|
|
Lee v. Kenma (2002) |
Adeq. and Independent. [Habeas] State applies archaic procedural rule on Murder defendant. Presumed adequacy of procedural ground doesn't address federal interest here. Dissent: have to examine every time then? |
|
|
Michigan v Long (1983) |
Adeq. and Independent. [state as petitioner] Guy arrested but argued unreasonable search and seizure. Shall presume jurisdiction unless "plain statement" regarding grounds. Dissent: State court should have final say on own institution. Why presume jurisdiction when can ask state, figure out state law ourselves, or presume no jurisdiction? |
|
|
Medellin (2008) |
Self-Enforcing Treaties ICJ judgment should give Mexican right to ambassador counsel. Court: "undertakes to comply" not binding, so not self-executing. |
|
|
Osborn v. Bank of U.S (1824) |
Constitutional Scope of Jurisdiction Congress gave it jurisdiction when creating the bank with a whole bunch of rights. Dissent: what about naturalized citizens? |
|
|
Textile Workers (1957) |
Constitutional Scope of Jurisdiction Contract dispute with union + company. Statute allowed federal jurisdiction. Court read into statute implicit desire to create federal common law. Dissent (Frankfurter) This is a state law claim. Cannot create "protective" jurisdiction, need substantive federal question. |
|
|
Franchise Tax Board |
Well Pleaded Complaint "Arising Under" for 1331 does not allow a declaratory judgment that is really a federal defense to be considered. Want to let state courts determine scope of state agencies. |
|
|
Merrell Dow |
Well Pleaded Complaint State law claim based on federal statute that did not create right of action. Congressional silence: no jurisdiction/private remedy intended Dissent why assume lack of private remedy means no jurisdiction? |
|
|
Grable & Sons |
Well Pleaded Complaint State law quiet title action based on defective IRS delinquency notice. Need federal law that is 1) Actually disputed 2) Necessarily presented 3) Significant 4) Consistent with congressional judgment about federal-state balance (docket, litigation implied) Congressional Silence: can't expect them to create a cause of action for this |
|
|
Gunn v Minton |
Well Pleaded Complaint Malpractice case based on failed Patent suit not a federal court issue. State law issues only, no precedential value outside parties there.
|
|
|
United Mine Workers v Gibbs
|
Supplemental Jurisdiction
"common nucleus of operative facts" necessary. |
|
|
Exxon Mobile v. Allapattah (2005) |
Supplemental Jurisdiction Interpreting 1367 to say that it "authorizes supplemental jurisdiction over claims of other plaintiffs even if less than amount specified in statute setting requirements." Thus if one party satisfies it, they all do. But still must be diverse. Dissent: unclear how you separate out these requirements. |
|
|
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson |
Removal Can remove case if no federal law if entirely preempted. Dissent (Scalia) proper response is to dismiss, not federalize and remove. |
|
|
Monroe v Pape |
1983 Late at night, police came in and ransacked apartment etc then released them. Applies to individuals even not acting with state 'permission' due to 14A background. |
|
|
Monell |
1983 Local governments are persons for 1983. |
|
|
Lyons |
Standing + Injunctive Relief Guy was chokeholded, but could not enjoin it because unclear her would be choked again. |
|
|
Harlow v. Fitzgerald |
Immunity, Bivens Presidential aides wanted absolute immunity, but cabinet doesn't even get that. Discretionary functions shielded unless violate clearly established statutory/constitutional rights
|
|
|
Chilsholm |
11th Amendment States can be sued by citizens. Dissent States are Sovereign, shouldn't be doing this! |
|
|
Hans |
11th Amendment Read the dissent from Chisholm to say 11th amendment does not allow citizens of own state to sue in federal court. |
|
|
Ex Parte Young |
EPY MN AG in contempt for pursuing unconstitutional act. Federal courts can enjoin officers of states from pursuing unconstitutional ats. |
|
|
Edelman v Jordan |
EPY State office not administering medicaid benefits well. Got proactive relief, but cannot get $ for retrospective reliefs. Not about total cost. |
|
|
Seminole Tribe |
11A - Only post 11A changes for abrogation allowed - A lot of reliance on art. III - EPY narrowing here since created alternative which struck down, but no growing power. (relied on some Bivens cases about remedial schemes) |
|
|
Alden v Maine |
11th Amendment After Seminole Tribe, parties tried to sue state in state court under federal cause of action.
- Printz and NY consistency - cannot turn state on itself - national government more power than fed. court?
|
|
|
Bivens |
Bivens - Guy's house gets stormed middle of the night etc - Presumed remedy for every wrong - Broad equitable powers of the Court. |
|
|
Stoneridge Investments |
Implied Statutory Rights (Charter communications fraud with motorola) Congress didn't put aiding and abettors back in this statute, we shouldn't do it for them. More textalism |
|
|
Coleman |
Abrogation Have to abrogate under 14th amendment. Here, FMLA self-leave act not sufficiently for women's benefit.
|
|
|
Douglas |
Abrogation Unclear if can proceed under Supremacy Clause action to enforce federal statute. |
|
|
Pullman |
Abstention (Pullman) If definitive ruling on unsettled state law question can avoid constitutional Q, abstain.
(Likely less of big deal, since cannot do EPY on state action protected by 11A anyway: Pennhurst).
|
|
|
England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners |
Abstention (Pullman) In Windsor we said had to make state court aware of clarification in light of federal question. Here, parties litigated entire federal claim. Usually that means you cannot litigate in federal court. HERE, we'll let you do that, but only here! (after abstention, defendant can remove it or oppose fed. q. w/ reservation). |
|
|
Colorado River Water |
Abstention (Colorado River) Want to avoid duplicative litigation where possible, even if not technical bar. Here especially, federal amendment for policy to adjudicate rights in unified proceedings. Need state-law based rights 3 factors: 1) inconvenience of federal forum 2) avoid piecemeal litigation 3) order jurisdiction was obtained by concurrent forums |
|
|
Smith v. Bayer Corp |
Anti-injunction Act Relitigation exception case. (protect or effecutuate)
|
|
|
Mitchum v. Foster |
Anti-Injunction Act, 1983 1983 "Expressly authorizes" injunction of state proceedings. to determine:
○ First, it does not need to be expressly reference to AIA |
|
|
Kline v. Burke Construction |
Anti-Injunction Act In rem v. In personam difference for "aid of jurisdiction" exception of AIA |
|
|
Atlantic Coast Railroad |
Anti-Injunction Act -- Picketers wanted to enjoin based on success of other petitioners. -- Have to fit injunction within statute -- Here, not seriously impairing ability to decide THIS case. |
|
|
Younger V Harris |
Anti-injunction act (leaf-letting case being prosecuted. Wanted injunction for facial challenge to constitutionality)
|
|
|
Samuels v Mackell |
Anti-Injunction Act Decided same day as Younger. Declaratory relief is same as injunctive relief in these cases basically |
|
|
Steffel v. Thompson |
Anti-injunction Act, Standing Friend gets trouble leafletting, now he challenges it with Declaratory relief.
|
|
|
Hicks v Miranda |
Anti-Injunction Act/Equitable Restraint Where state criminal proceedings are begun against the federal plaintiffs after federal complaint is filed but before any "proceedings of substance on the merits" has taken place in the federal court, the principles of Younger v. Harris should apply in full force. |
|
|
Pennzoil v. Texaco
|
Anti-Injunction Act / Younger Federalism
Civil case for younger, read important state interest into it. |
|
|
Wainwright v Sykes |
Habeas Corpus Guy shot friend, admitted while drunk, lost trial, habeas appeal brought up Miranda first time.
|
|
|
Stone v Powell |
Habeas Corpus Suppress gun evidence found on guy during arrest for unconstitutional vagarancy law?
|
|
|
Teague v. Lane |
Habeas Corpus
|
|
|
Thomas v. Union Carbide |
Legislative Courts FIFRA pesticide thing requiring arbitration in disputes. 1) Congress can create private right related to regulatory scheme that is appropriate for agency resolution. 2) public doesn't just mean government is party 3) was subject to judicial review for fraud etc |
|
|
Schor v. Commodity Future Trading |
Legislative Courts Adjudicate claims under act and relevant counter-claims. 1) Consent! (big deal?) 2) Yea private but not "talismanic" 3) Like Crowell, particular area of law. 4) No federalism problem since counter-claims could be in fed. court anyway |
|
|
Stern v Marshall |
Legislative Courts Anna-Nicole Smith Case Court invalidated conferral of power to BR Courts to enter final judgment on state common law defamation claim. |
|
|
Gulf Offshore v Mobile |
State Court + Federal Law Offshore accident on oil rig. Exclusive federal jurisdiction? 1) Generally we assume that state court open to federal claims unless exclusive jurisdiction. Here, exclusive jurisdiction was a/b mineral claims/rights etc, not a tort accident. 2) factors:
|
|
|
Testa v Katt |
Start Court + Federal Law Guy sold his car for too much. State: "foreign law!"
Supreme Court: you're bound by constitution to apply federal law! Cannot presuppose free to decline jurisdiction |
|
|
Lockery v Phillips |
Jurisdiction Stripping Price-Fixing statute. Can appeal administrator decision to 3-judge panel.
|
|
|
Yakus v. U.S |
Jurisdiction Stripping Violation of Price-fixing statute. Can bring constitutional defense of scheme in civil defense of enforcement?
1) there was a stautory remedy they didn't take advantage of 2) have not shown judicial remedies weren't adequate to protect their rights 3) unclear defense on if price regulation itself is unconstitutional on its face. |
|
|
Boumedine v. Bush |
Jurisdiction Stripping, Habeas Habeas available? Yes, even if not citizens, since on sovereign land basically, extended time period, and disptue status as enemies. Current Review adequate? 1) Congress did not intend to create habeas substitute in all but name 2) must have "meaningful opportunity to demonstrate held pursuant to" bad law 3) scope of habeas depends on rigor of first conviction 4) executive detainment: most scary 5) CSRT doesn't really satisify d/p but even if so, might still need it: else any full trial would not need H/C. No prudential barriers for military here. |
|
|
Tarble's Case |
Habeas, Jurisdiction Stripping State court can't grant habeas to person under federal custody. |
|
|
RI v. MA 1838 |
Original Jurisdiction of S. Ct. No sovereign immunity between suits between states for border disputes. Supreme Court has jurisdiction |
|
|
IL v. City of Milwaukee |
Original Jurisdiction of S. Ct. - No dice, have to go to Fed. District Court. (since federal law). - Was federal common law, but now less of that |
|
|
Carlson v. Green |
Bivens Son died in prison, state survivorship law capped below threshold for fed. ct. Recognized 8A Bivens Claim bivens may be defeated in two cases: 1) Special factors counsel hesitation in absence of affirmative action by Congress
|
|
|
David v. Passman |
Bivens Staff of Congressman sued under Title VII, explicitly written to exempt Congress. Court allowed Bivens anyway, recognizing Equal protection clause Bivens claim. |
|
|
Bush v Lucas |
Bivens Astronaut complaining about NASA No separate cause of action since there's a remedial scheme for agency |
|
|
Schwiker v. Chilicky |
Bivens No bivens remedy will be recognized for the denial of fair treatment in social security disablity context: "intridicate scheme of SS limits relief" (what about challenge to scheme itself??) |
|
|
Malesko |
Bivens Scalia/Thomas: we don't read implications in statutory field, and be scarier to do it in constitution that Congress cannot repudiate. |
|
|
Borak 1964 |
Implied Statutory Remedies Section 27 only effective if it gives private right of action beyond remedial etc. |
|
|
Cort v. Ash (1975) |
Implied Statutory Remedies Factors to find right of action:
|
|
|
Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago (1979) |
Implied Statutory Remedies Found one in Title IX, despite spending clause scheme of enforcement.
Affirmed in Franklin v. Gwinnett County (once found right, can sue for damages) |
|
|
Wright v. Roanoke Redevelopment Housing Authority (1987) |
Implied Statutory Rights/1983
|
|
|
Gonzaga University v. Doe |
Implied Statutory Rights, 1983
|
|
|
Quern v. Jordan |
1983/ 11A No abrogation of state immunity by 1983 |
|
|
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986) |
1983 Prosecutor/policy-making official told police to forcefully serve subpoena, WAS 1983 action. Dissent: respondeant superior!
Cf. Tuttle
|
|
|
City of Oklahoma v Tuttle (1985) |
1983 No respondeat superior for 1983 Single misconduct of police not enough to say municipality caused incident |
|
|
Saucier v. Katz |
Immunities "Clearly established" must be undertaken in light of that specific case, not general proposition |
|
|
Pearson v. Callahan |
Immunity Courts can decide which of two prongs can be analyzed first |
|
|
Camreta v. Greene |
Immunity Party prevailing on immunity grounds found to violate constitution may appeal. Pfander: maybe do it on decided nominal damages grounds first? |
|
|
Imbler v. Pachtman |
Immunity Absolute immunity for prosecutor on prosecuting maters. Qualified as investigator/manager/administrator |
|
|
Reich v. Collins |
11A and Abrogation Guy paid state taxes that were collected in violation of state law, expecting to get them back. No immunity for state due to DUE PROCESS clause abrogation for remedy they promised |
|
|
Howlett v. Rose |
11A Abrogation State sovereign immunity under 1983 no broader in state court than federal court: has to be an arm of the state. |
|
|
Hutto v. Finney 1978 |
Ex Parte Young Attorneys fees aren't retroactive remedies |
|
|
Green v. Mansour (1985) |
Ex parte Young Prospective relief makes sense since EPY gives life to supremacy clause to stop violation of federal law. But retrospective not enough to overcome 11A. |
|
|
Pennhurst |
EPY Young is a "fiction" that state action counts under 14A but not 11A. EPY does not apply to violations of state law or create cause of action in federal court for state law. |
|
|
Wisconsin v. Constantineau |
Abstention Court did not do Pullman Abstention since law, even if 40 years old, was pretty clear: notice to liquor stores of people not allowed to buy liquor. |
|
|
San Remo Hotel |
Abstention No England reservation if issue argued in State court is substantially the same as federal one. |
|
|
Burford v. Sun Oil Co |
Abstention, Burford Abstain from state administrative agencies when: 1) Difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the results in the case then at the bar 2) Disrupt state ability to establish coherent policy w/ respect to matter of substantial concern
Must be degree of uncertainty (state marriage/dependent child law)
Difference from Pullman: No coming back.
|
|
|
Danforth v Minnesota |
Habeas Corpus State habeas courts are not bound by Teague because it is not a jurisdictional rule, so they may apply a new rule retroactively if they would like to. |
|
|
Tyler v. Cain |
Habeas Corpus New rules to apply retroactively by Teague standards must be in holding. |
|
|
Louisiana Power and Light Co v. Thibodaux |
Thibodaux Abstention Unclear state law regarding eminent domain might be sufficient basis for abstention. (can't just be factual problem: Allegeny v. Frank Mashuda |
|
|
Moses H. Cone Hospital |
Colorado River/Parallel Proceedings Federal law counsels against surrender despite some state claims. Choice of law tail wagging jurisdiction dog? |
|
|
28 U.S.C 2283 |
|
|
|
Leiter Minerals |
Anti Injunction Act Anti-injunction Act not applicable to suits brought by the U.S. or its agencies. |
|
|
Donovan v. City of Dallas |
Anti Injunction Act State court cannot enjoin overlapping in personam federal proceeding. Maybe exception for state in res custody |
|
|
Kerotest Manufacturing |
Anti-injunction Acts Cannot enjoin co-federal courts. |
|
|
Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) |
AIA/Younger Some constitutional issues not covered by defense in state court. Upheld injunction: Legality of pretrial detention w/o a judicial hearing, such that defense could not be raised in criminal prosecution. |
|
|
NOPSI |
AIA/Younger Exception to Younger with federal preemption? No- states still have general interest in law, not supposed to weigh against one individual case. |
|
|
Doran v Salem Inn
|
AIA/Younger
Preliminary injunction for pending state prosecutions that haven't started yet totally allowed. Would be allowed declaratory relief for example. State can prosecute others |
|
|
Wooley v Maynard |
AIA/Younger NH license place covering "live free or die" Permitted to get permanent injunction for future enforcement due to 1st amendment protection. - Like steffell "concern of future prosecution" - should get federal forum for federal rights |
|
|
Zablocki v Redhail |
AIA/Younger Could get injunctive relief to prevent county clerks from enforcing laws. Not a court. |
|
|
Morales v TWA |
AIA/Younger Upheld injunctive relief against attorney generals seeking to sue under laws deemed to be preempted by federal law. Had been served with notices of "intent to sue"
|
|
|
Laidlaw |
Standing; Environmental Need ongoing and concrete connection with habitat. Here, lived by water pollution, day-to-day exposure, etc. |
|
|
Lujan |
Standing Hard and long chain of causation with development project and plan to visit |
|
|
N.Y v. US |
Standing State suing for general grievance may be ok if threatening sovereignty/commandeering |
|
|
VA v. Sibelius |
Standing State suing on behalf of own citizens no special standing |
|
|
Crowell |
Legislative Courts Must have de novo review about 1) questions of law, 2) jurisdiction, 3) constitutional fact,
Adjuct/Binding? |
|
|
Northern Pipline |
Legislative Court 1) Art. III review didn't save case 2) have final power of judgment 3) was based on state law (contract claims)
|
|
|
Flast |
Standing, Taxpayer Nexus test: 1. The alleged unconstitutionality is an exercise of the congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, § 8; AND
basically religion
|
|
|
Clapper |
Standing Challenge by U.S. citizens to surveillance framework that threated to watch their communications with those abroad. Majority: not "fairly traceable" will have to target that person, and go forward in 4A violative way, etc. |
|
|
Driehaus |
Standing/Mootness Abortion group challenging election law - candidate lost and had withdrawn complaint. Supreme Court found satisfied injury requirement: future speech, prohibited, and credible threat of future enforcement |
|
|
Windsor |
Standing, Adverseness U.S. didn't defend the constitutionality of DOMA, but was still considered to suffer injury by having to pay taxes, and because BLAG offered argument, it's totally ok |
|
|
Perry |
Standing CA lost Prop 8 at district court level, didn't appeal. State interest groups took it up. 9th Circuit certified to CA Supreme Court if citizens could appear under CA law. US Supreme Court said it's a federal question, and just a "generalized grievance" and no special interest compared to any other citizen |
|
|
Sprint v Jacobs |
Injunctions No growing power for Younger abstention in Civil cases |
|
|
Will v. Michigan Dept. of Police. |
Can't sue police officers in official capacity for $. |
