User:IntoThinAir/sandbox

• Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs
• Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard
• Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC
• Ludecke v. Watkins

Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 1, 1990 Decided December 3, 1990 Full case name Shirley W. Irwin, Petitioner v. Department of Veterans Affairs et al. Citations 498 U.S. 89 (more) 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 Argument Oral argument Case history Prior 874 F.2d 1092 (CA5 1989) Holding Statutes of limitations in actions against the Government are subject to the same rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling applicable to suits against private defendants. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · John P. Stevens Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Case opinions Majority Rehnquist, joined by Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy Concurrence White (in part and in judgment), joined by Marshall Concur/dissent Stevens Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Text of Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs is available from: Cornell Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard

Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard Supreme Court of the United States Argued December 10, 1997 Decided March 25, 1998 Full case name Ohio Adult Parole Authority, et al., Petitioners v. Eugene Woodard Citations 523 U.S. 272 (more) 118 S.Ct. 1244, 140 L.Ed.2d 387 Argument Oral argument Case history Prior 107 F.3d 1178 (CA6 1997) Holding Giving an inmate the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process does not violate his Fifth Amendment rights. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority Rehnquist, joined by unanimous (Part III); O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer (Part I) Plurality Rehnquist (Part II), joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Concurrence O'Connor (in part and in judgment), joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Concur/dissent Stevens

Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC

Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 21, 1996 Decided June, 1996 Full case name Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. Federal Communications Commission Docket no. 95-124 Citations 518 U.S. 727 (more) 116 S.Ct. 2374, 135 L.Ed.2d 888 Case history Prior 56 F. 3d 105 (CADC 1995) Holding Sections 10(b) and 10(c) of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Court membership Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy David Souter · Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer Case opinions Majority Breyer (Part III), joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg Plurality Breyer (Parts I, II, and V), joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter Plurality Breyer (Parts IV and VI), joined by Stevens, Souter Concurrence Stevens Concurrence Souter Concur/dissent O'Connor Concur/dissent Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg Concur/dissent Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, Scalia Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. Federal Communications Commission, 518 U.S. 727 (1996), was a 1996 United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. The Court held that provisions 10(b) and 10(c) of this Act violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Provision 10(b) required operators of leased access television stations to segregate "patently offensive" programming on a separate channel, and to block access to that channel from viewers. Provision 10(c) allowed the operators of public access channels to prohibit the broadcasting of programming that the operator "reasonably believes describes or depicts sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner". The Court also upheld section 10(a) of the same Act, which granted a similar ability as 10(c) to leased access channels rather than public access channels, as consistent with the First Amendment. Overall: Part III: Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg: 10(b) is unconstitutional Parts I and II: Breyer, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter: 10(a) is constitutional Part IV: Breyer, Stevens, Souter: 10(c) is unconstitutional Kennedy, Ginsburg (separate opinion): 10(c) is unconstitutional Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia (separate opinion): 10(a), 10(b), and 10(c) are all constitutional

Ludecke v. Watkins

Ludecke v. Watkins Supreme Court of the United States Argued May 3-4, 1948 Decided June 21, 1948 Full case name Kurt Lüdecke Citations 335 U.S. 160 (more) 68 S.Ct. 1429, 92 L.Ed. 1881 Case history Prior 163 F.2d 143 (CA2 1947) Court membership Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Associate Justices Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter · William O. Douglas Frank Murphy · Robert H. Jackson Wiley B. Rutledge · Harold H. Burton Case opinions Majority Frankfurter, joined by Vinson, Reed, Jackson, Burton Dissent Black, joined by Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge Dissent Douglas, joined by Murphy, Rutledge Lüdecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), was a 1948 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Alien Enemy Act precluded judicial review of executive orders to remove foreign nationals from the United States during wartime. The case began in 1946, when the Attorney General invoked the Alien Enemy Act to issue an order for the removal of German national and outspoken Nazi Kurt Lüdecke. Though by that time the hostilities of World War II had ended and the Germans had surrendered, the Court nevertheless held the state of "declared war" needed for the Alien Enemy Act to be invoked still existed, and so the government was permitted to enforce its order to remove Lüdecke. Justice Felix Frankfurter authored the majority opinion, and two justices–Hugo Black and William O. Douglas–authored dissenting opinions. References External links Text of Lüdecke v. Watkins is available from: Cornell Justia Library of Congress Justia Cornell Free Speech Center LOC