United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in May 2015

City and County of San Francisco California et. al v. Sheehan

Officers are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because there is no clearly established law addressing the issue of necessity to accommodate for mental illness

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Coleman v. Tollefson

The three strikes provision of the forma pauperis statute counts a dismissal that is currently on appeal as a strike.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne

A state law that does not credit taxpayers for income tax paid in other states for income earned out of state is unconstitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co.

Whether a plaintiff's claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is moot when the plaintiff is offered complete relief. Whether derivative sovereign immunity is limited to public works projects.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Harris v. Viegelhan

Under§ 348(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor who in good faith converts from a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is entitled to a refund of any accumulated wages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Henderson v. United States

A court-ordered transfer of a felon’s firearms to a third party is not barred by 18 U.S.C. §922(g) if the court is reasonably sure the third party will not give the felon control over the firearms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Tibble v. Edison International

A fiduciary's allegedly imprudent decision to retain an investment is considered as an omission or action that triggers the six-year statute of limitations.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trusts and Estates

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel does not consider denial of debtor repayment plans final orders that warrant appeal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association

Whether a vacated order that attempted to regulate wholesale prices paid for demand response, on the basis that the order was beyond jurisdiction due to its impermissible effect on retail markets risks confusion in the energy markets and unnecessarily limits the government's regulatory options.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Back to Top