Definition of term life insurance
The Oyez Project: 1985 Term
U.S. Supreme Court Cases, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)
- Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Lavoie (No. 84-1601)
No details yet.
- Allen v. Illinois (No. 85-5404)
No details yet.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (No. 84-1602)
Liberty Lobby, Inc. (Liberty), a nonprofit "citizen's lobby" corporation, filed a libel action against a magazine published by Jack Anderson et al. Liberty claimed that one of Anderson's articles contained false and derogatory statements about its operations. In its defense, Anderson claimed that as a pubic entity Liberty must show with "convincing clarity" that Anderson acted with actual malice - something they could not do since the article's author stated in an affidavit that he thoroughly researched and cross-checked all his information. Liberty claimed that Anderson did act with actual malice since its author depended on patently unreliable sources. Following a district court's summary judgment ruling favoring Anderson, an appellate court reversed as it held that the lower court erroneously applied actual malice standards of proof at the summary judgement phase. Anderson appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (No. 85-437)
No details yet.
- At&T Technologies v. Communications Workers (No. 84-1913)
No details yet.
- Atkins v. Rivera (No. 85-632)
No details yet.
- Attorney General Of N. Y. v. Soto-Lopez (No. 84-1803)
No details yet.
- Automobile Workers v. Brock (No. 84-1777)
No details yet.
- Baker v. General Motors Corp. (No. 85-117)
No details yet.
- Batson v. Kentucky (No. 84-6263)
Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him.
- Bazemore v. Friday (No. 85-93)
No details yet.
- Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist. (No. 84-773)
No details yet.
- Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (No. 84-1667)
At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
- Board Of Governors, Frs v. Dimension Financial (No. 84-1274)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. Agencies Opposed To Soc. Sec. Entrap. (No. 85-521)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. American Hospital Assn. (No. 84-1529)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. City Of New York (No. 84-1923)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. Mich. Academy Of Family Physicians (No. 85-225)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. Owens (No. 84-1905)
No details yet.
- Bowen v. Roy (No. 84-780)
No details yet.
- Bowers v. Hardwick (No. 85-140)
Michael Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while engaging in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. After being charged with violating a Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy, Hardwick challenged the statute's constitutionality in Federal District Court. Following a ruling that Hardwick failed to state a claim, the court dismissed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that Georgia's statute was unconstitutional. Georgia's Attorney General, Michael J. Bowers, appealed to the Supreme Court and was granted certiorari.
- Bowsher v. Synar (No. 85-1377)
Due to rising government budget deficits during the first term of the Reagan Administration, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act was designed to eliminate the federal budget deficit by restricting spending during fiscal years 1986 through 1991. Under the law, if maximum allowable deficit amounts were exceeded, automatic cuts, as requested by the Comptroller General, would go into effect. This case was decided together with O'Neill v. Synar and United States Senate v. Synar.
- Brock v. Pierce County (No. 85-385)
No details yet.
- Brown-Forman Distillers v. N. Y. Liquor Auth. (No. 84-2030)
No details yet.
- Cabana v. Bullock (No. 84-1236)
No details yet.
- California v. Ciraolo (No. 84-1513)
The Santa Clara Police received an anonymous tip that Ciraolo was growing marijuana in his back yard. Unable to observe the yard from the ground due to a high fence which encircled it, the police secured a private plane and flew over Ciraolo's house at an altitude of 1,000 feet. The fly-over confirmed the presence of marijuana. The police then obtained a search warrant, seized 73 plants on the next day, and arrested Ciraolo who then pleaded guilty to the cultivation of marijuana. The California Court of Appeals, however, found that the aerial observation was illegal and reversed Ciraolo's conviction.
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (No. 85-198)
No details yet.
- Cleavinger v. Saxner (No. 84-732)
No details yet.
- Colorado v. Connelly (No. 85-660)
No details yet.
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor (No. 85-621)
No details yet.
- Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (No. 84-1555)
No details yet.
- Crane v. Kentucky (No. 85-5238)
No details yet.
- Daniels v. Williams (No. 84-5872)
No details yet.
- Darden v. Wainwright (No. 85-5319)
No details yet.
- Darden v. Wainwright (No. 85-5319)
No details yet.
- Davidson v. Cannon (No. 84-6470)
No details yet.
- Davis v. Bandemer (No. 84-1244)
A group of Democrats challenged Indiana's 1981 state apportionment scheme on the ground of political gerrymandering. The Democrats argued that the apportionment unconstitutionally diluted their votes in important districts, violating their rights. A three-judge District Court sustained the Democrats' challenge.
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall (No. 84-1279)
No details yet.
- Department Of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans (No. 85-289)
No details yet.
