Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Civil Rights : From 10/01/02 To 07/01/03
Number of summaries found: 8
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law |
| Title: | LAWRENCE v. TEXAS |
| Date: | 06/26/03 |
| Case Number: | 02-102 |
| Summary: | Texas law criminalizing two people of the same sex from engaging in private, consensual sex is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick is overturned. Individual decisions regarding private, consensual intimate physical relationships are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Elections |
| Title: | GEORGIA v. ASHCROFT |
| Date: | 06/26/03 |
| Case Number: | 02-182 |
| Summary: | A section 2 vote dilution violation under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section 1973 is not an independent reason to deny section 5 preclearance. Any diminution of a minority group's effective exercise of the electoral franchise violates section 5 only if the State cannot show that the gains in the plan as a whole offset the loss in a particular district. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | DESERT PALACE, INC. v. COSTA |
| Date: | 06/09/03 |
| Case Number: | 02-679 |
| Summary: | Direct evidence of discrimination is not required for a plaintiff to obtain a mixed-motive jury instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure |
| Title: | CHAVEZ v. MARTINEZ |
| Date: | 05/27/03 |
| Case Number: | 01-1444 |
| Summary: | A 42 U.S.C. section 1983 plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated through questioning by police, where he was never charged and no statements were used against him. Questioning of plaintiff while he was being treated for gunshot wounds after an altercation with police did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Criminal Law & Procedure, Government Law, Indian Law |
| Title: | INYO COUNTY v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OF THE BISHOP CMTY. |
| Date: | 05/19/03 |
| Case Number: | 02-281 |
| Summary: | An Indian tribe did not qualify as a "person" who may sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, under the circumstances, in an action asserting sovereign immunity from state court processes arising from a county investigation into alleged off-reservation crimes. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCS., P.C. v. WELLS |
| Date: | 04/22/03 |
| Case Number: | 01-1435 |
| Summary: | In determining whether shareholder-directors of a corporation should be counted as "employees" under the ADA, courts should assess whether the shareholder-directors operate independently and manage the business, or instead are subject to the firm's control. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Construction, Elections, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS v. BUCKEYE CMTY. HOPE FOUND. |
| Date: | 03/25/03 |
| Case Number: | 01-1269 |
| Summary: | A city did not violate the Equal Protection Clause by submitting a facially-neutral referendum petition to voters, which called for repeal of a municipal housing ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex, absent a showing of racially discriminatory intent. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Labor & Employment Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | MEYER v. HOLLEY |
| Date: | 01/22/03 |
| Case Number: | 01-1120 |
| Summary: | The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 3604(b), 3605(a), imposes liability without fault upon an employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i.e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon a corporation but not upon its officers or owners. |