2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (original) (raw)
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.
| Property | Value |
|---|---|
| dbo:abstract | The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted. The cases for this term are listed chronologically, noting the midterm change in the Court's membership caused by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the confirmation of Justice Samuel Alito to her seat on January 31, 2006. (en) |
| dbo:thumbnail | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg?width=300 |
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/124/ https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041724370f3d135411586 https://www.leagle.com/decision/20081770571dffsupp2d119911661 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20100311158 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1095.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1131.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1475.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1538.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1581.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-607.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-8384.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-9949.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-101.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-379.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-552.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-555.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-6997.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-8400.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx%3FTerm=05 |
| dbo:wikiPageID | 5247569 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageLength | 26436 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger) |
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID | 1098653042 (xsd:integer) |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink | dbr:Pro_se dbr:Samuel_Alito dbr:Sandra_Day_O'Connor dbr:En_banc dbr:F._Supp._2d dbr:David_Souter dbr:John_Paul_Stevens dbr:John_Roberts dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_546 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_547 dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,_volume_548 dbr:Right_of_asylum dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Eleventh_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Seventh_Circuit dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Sixth_Circuit dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Central_District_of_California dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Alaska dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Arizona dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Colorado dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_District_of_Columbia dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Michigan dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Alabama dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Illinois dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_Ohio dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_California dbr:United_States_District_Court_for_the_Southern_District_of_Texas dbr:Ineffective_assistance_of_counsel dbr:Prosecutorial_misconduct dbr:10th_Cir. dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:Colorado_General_Assembly dbr:McConnell_v._FEC dbr:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg dbr:Transferred_intent dbr:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 dbr:Civil_Service_Reform_Act_of_1978 dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Collateral_estoppel dbr:Morgan_County,_West_Virginia dbr:Controlled_substance dbr:Rooker-Feldman_doctrine dbr:Anthony_Kennedy dbr:Antonin_Scalia dbr:Board_of_Immigration_Appeals dbr:Stephen_Breyer dbr:Strickland_v._Washington dbr:Subject-matter_jurisdiction dbr:Colorado_Supreme_Court dbr:Federal_Appendix dbr:Federal_Reporter dbr:Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure dbr:Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause dbr:William_Rehnquist dbr:D._Colo. dbr:Law_library dbr:2006_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:Lists_of_2005_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions dbr:Faretta_v._California dbr:Federal_Aviation_Administration dbr:Federal_Supplement dbr:Federal_question_jurisdiction dbr:Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act dbr:Privity dbr:Remand_(court_procedure) dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_per_curiam_opinions dbr:Habeas_corpus dbr:Attachment_(law) dbr:Iran dbr:Federal_Election_Commission_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc. dbr:Arizona dbr:Atkins_v._Virginia dbr:Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States dbr:Jury_trial dbr:L._Ed. dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Ohio dbr:Certiorari dbr:Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_Code dbr:United_States_Sentencing_Commission dbr:Exhaustion_of_remedies dbr:South_Eastern_Reporter dbr:Mentally_retarded dbr:Ohio_Supreme_Court dbr:LEXIS dbr:Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act_of_2002 dbr:Per_curiam dbr:West_Virginia_Circuit_Court dbr:F._App'x dbr:File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg dbr:Wiktionary:forfeit |
| dbp:citation | 546 (xsd:integer) 547 (xsd:integer) 548 (xsd:integer) |
| dbp:dateargued | 2006-01-17 (xsd:date) 2006-03-21 (xsd:date) |
| dbp:datedecided | 2005-10-11 (xsd:date) 2005-10-17 (xsd:date) 2005-10-31 (xsd:date) 2005-11-28 (xsd:date) 2006-01-23 (xsd:date) 2006-02-21 (xsd:date) 2006-04-17 (xsd:date) 2006-04-24 (xsd:date) 2006-06-05 (xsd:date) 2006-06-19 (xsd:date) 2006-06-22 (xsd:date) |
| dbp:fullcasename | Anthony Ash, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (en) Anthony Kane, Warden v. Joe Garcia Espitia (en) Denver A. Youngblood, Jr. v. West Virginia (en) Ivan Eberhart v. United States (en) Jeffrey Jerome Salinas v. United States (en) Margaret Bradshaw, Warden, v. Kenneth T. Richey (en) Paul Allen Dye v. Gerald Hofauer, Warden (en) Terry L. Whitman v. United States Department of Transportation, and Norman Mineta, U.S. Secretary of the Department of Transportation (en) Keith Lance, et al. v. Gigi Dennis, Colorado Secretary of State (en) Dora B. Schriro, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections v. Robert Douglas Smith (en) Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba Labcorp v. Metabo-Lite Laboratories, Inc., et al. (en) Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission (en) Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Dariush Elahi (en) Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Michelle Thomas, David George Thomas, Tyneal Michelle Thomas, Shaldon Waide Thomas (en) |
| dbp:othercitations | 2006 (xsd:integer) 17280.0 172800.0 |
| dbp:priorhistory | 17280.0 172800.0 25920.0 Guilty plea entered, defendant sentenced, S.D. Tex.; affirmed as modified, (en) Injunction denied, No. 04-1260, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29036 ; injunction denied, appeal dismissed, No. 04-1260, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18795, ; injunction denied, 542 U.S. 1305 ; dismissed, No. 04-1260, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17226 ; probable jurisdiction noted, 126 S. Ct. 36 (en) Petition dismissed, No. 00-00828, C.D. Cal.; reversed, 113 Fed. Appx. 802 (en) Verdict for plaintiffs, No. 96-03257, N.D. Ala; affirmed in part, reversed, 129 Fed. Appx. 529 ; rehearing en banc denied, 148 Fed. Appx. 923 (en) Petition dismissed, No. 97-74817, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9120 ; reversed, 45 Fed. Appx. 428 ; vacated on rehearing, 111 Fed. Appx. 363 (en) |
| dbp:source | Justia (en) official slip opinion (en) |
| dbp:sourceurl | https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/548/124/ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1095.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1131.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1475.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1538.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1581.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-607.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-8384.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-9949.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-101.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-379.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-552.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-555.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-6997.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-8400.pdf |
| dbp:subsequenthistory | 126 (xsd:integer) 172800.0 25920.0 Rehearing denied, 126 S. Ct. 1163 (en) |
| dbp:summary | Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals had failed to consider whether applicants for asylum could base a claim of persecution for membership in a particular social group on their family membership. The court furthermore determined that the applicant's family satisfied the requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that because the Board had not yet developed a factual record on the issue or made its own findings, the court should not have decided that issue itself, but rather left it for the Board to determine on remand. (en) Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia vacated and remanded. In a rape case, the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that was in the form of a note from one of the alleged victims. Scalia filed a dissent, joined by Thomas. Kennedy filed a dissent. (en) Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The Court of Appeals had affirmed the District Court's judgment that the Civil Service Reform Act did not expressly confer, and therefore precluded, federal court jurisdiction over a grievance suit filed by an FAA employee under his collective-bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court found that his claim fell within the general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question was accordingly not whether the CSRA precluded jurisdiction, but whether it divested the federal courts of the jurisdiction that is generally conferred by section 1331. Because the CSRA treats claims differently based upon where they fall in its statutory scheme, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for it to decide whether Whitman's claim fell within a category of the CSRA that would grant federal courts jurisdiction. Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case. (en) Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded. The Court of Appeals had concluded that the defendant's conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance constituted a "controlled substance offense" for purposes of the sentencing guidelines of the United States Sentencing Commission. However, the Supreme Court vacated, because the definition of "controlled substance offense" requires possession with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense, of which the defendant was not convicted. (en) Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the habeas petitioner's conviction was contrary to Ohio law, which it claimed did not recognize transferred intent as a theory for aggravated felony murder; and that petitioner's trial counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 . The Supreme Court vacated the court's decision, holding that it had directly contradicted the authoritative interpretation of the relevant state law by the Ohio Supreme Court. The Court further held that the ineffective assistance of counsel claim was inappropriately based on evidence that had not been properly presented first to the state habeas courts, and on arguments that had not been presented on state court appeal. (en) Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the habeas petition of a pro se defendant who was denied access to a law library during his trial should not have been dismissed. The court believed that the Supreme Court's decision in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 established that such a denial of access violated a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to defend himself. The Supreme Court reversed, observing that Faretta said nothing specific about a state's duty to aid pro se defendants, and that lower court rulings conflicted on whether Faretta established such a right. It accordingly could not be used to claim an error of "clearly established" federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (en) Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. On appeal from a conviction for conspiracy to sell narcotics, the Court of Appeals had ruled that the time limit set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 for motions for a new trial was a requirement of subject-matter jurisdiction. It accordingly allowed the government to raise the issue on appeal for the first time. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Rule 33 merely established a non-jurisdictional, inflexible claim-processing rule that was forfeited if not timely asserted. (en) The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Breyer filed a dissent, joined by Stevens and Souter. (en) Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the habeas corpus petitioner failed to exhaust state remedies by not arguing his federal claim of prosecutorial misconduct in state court, which it concluded only because the state court's opinion failed to discuss that argument. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the failure of a court decision to discuss an argument does not by itself establish that the argument was never raised. The habeas petitioner's state court appellate brief clearly indicated that the federal claim had been raised in that forum. (en) Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the property of the Iranian Ministry of Defense could be attached by a private plaintiff under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act . It disagreed with the District Court's conclusion that the Ministry had waived its FSIA immunity, but instead ruled that it was amenable to attachment as an "agency or instrumentality" of a state rather than immune as a foreign state. The Supreme Court reversed because whether the Ministry itself qualified as a foreign state under FSIA was not a distinction that had been argued or considered in the lower court. This opinion was the first handed down by the Court in which Alito participated. (en) District Court for the District of Colorado vacated and remanded. The District Court had dismissed a suit supporting a legislative redistricting plan that the Colorado Supreme Court had invalidated in a prior action that was lost by the Colorado General Assembly, in part by challenging the state court's decision under the U.S. Constitution. The District Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the suit under the federal Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Although the plaintiffs were not parties to the prior state court action as the doctrine required, the District Court found that it nevertheless applied because the outcome of a government's litigation on a matter of public concern has preclusive effect over its citizens, such that the plaintiffs were in privity with the Colorado General Assembly. The Supreme Court vacated, ruling that the District Court had erroneously conflated preclusion principles with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This would cause the doctrine to conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because federal courts would then ignore the preclusive effects that state law would actually extend to state court decisions in favor of an exclusively federal law of preclusion. Ginsburg filed a concurrence, joined by Souter, noting that the issue in Stevens' dissent was better determined by the District Court on remand. Stevens filed a dissent, arguing that while the District Court erroneously decided that it lacked jurisdiction, dismissal was nevertheless correct because under Colorado state law, the issues in the suit were precluded from being relitigated. (en) District Court for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded. The District Court had dismissed an "as-applied" challenge to the prohibition of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 against the funding of "electioneering communications" from the general treasury funds of corporations, finding such challenges foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 . The Supreme Court vacated, ruling that "as-applied" challenges to this provision had not been foreclosed by McConnell, and that the District Court had instead incorrectly interpreted a footnote from that case. This case was addressed in full by the Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 . (en) Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The Court of Appeals had reversed a verdict for Title VII plaintiffs, ruling that use of the word "boy" without qualifications or modifiers could never by itself constitute a racial slur. The court also found insufficient plaintiffs' evidence that the defendant's explanation of its conduct was merely a pretext for racial discrimination, because it failed to "jump off the page and slap you in the face." The Supreme Court vacated, ruling that there was no basis for the lower court to conclude that the unqualified word "boy" was always benign. The Court also found the Court of Appeals' standard for evaluating the significance of pretextual evidence to be imprecise and unclear. (en) Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeals had suspended habeas proceedings and ordered Arizona state courts to conduct a jury trial on the issue of whether the petitioner was mentally retarded and therefore could not be executed under the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 . The Supreme Court ruled that the court exceeded its authority by determining the method by which the petitioner's status was to be determined, because Atkins had expressly left it up to the states to decide their own procedures. (en) |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate | dbt:Cite_web dbt:Main dbt:Refbegin dbt:Refend dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Ussc dbt:SCOTUS_per_curiam dbt:SCOTUScaselists dbt:SCOTUSterm2005 |
| dcterms:subject | dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:Lists_of_2005_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_per_curiam_opinions |
| rdf:type | yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtPerCuriamOpinions yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Belief105941423 yago:Cognition100023271 yago:Content105809192 yago:Opinion105945642 yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 |
| rdfs:comment | The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006. Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted. (en) |
| rdfs:label | 2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (en) |
| owl:sameAs | yago-res:2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States wikidata:2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States https://global.dbpedia.org/id/4FvGE |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom | wikipedia-en:2005_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_S...e_United_States?oldid=1098653042&ns=0 |
| foaf:depiction | wiki-commons:Special:FilePath/Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf | wikipedia-en:2005_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects of | dbr:Youngblood_v._West_Virginia dbr:Schriro_v._Smith dbr:Ivan_Eberhart_v._United_States dbr:Maryland_v._Blake dbr:Dye_v._Hofbauer dbr:Lance_v._Dennis dbr:Ash_v._Tyson_Foods,_Inc. dbr:Ministry_of_Defense_and_Support_for_Ar..._of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_v._Elahi dbr:Whitman_v._DOT dbr:Whitman_v._Dep't_of_Transportation dbr:Whitman_v._Department_of_Transportation dbr:Per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States,_2005_term dbr:Eberhart_v._United_States dbr:Kane_v._Garcia_Espitia dbr:Lab._Corp._of_Am._Holdings_v._Metabolite_Labs. dbr:Bradshaw_v._Richey dbr:Gonzales_v._Thomas dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._FEC dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._Federal_Election_Comm'n dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._Federal_Election_Commission |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of | dbr:2006_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:FEC_v._Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc. dbr:Jay_Sekulow dbr:Youngblood_v._West_Virginia dbr:Schriro_v._Smith dbr:Salinas_v._United_States dbr:New_York_City_Department_of_Correction dbr:Ivan_Eberhart_v._United_States dbr:Maryland_v._Blake dbr:Dye_v._Hofbauer dbr:Lance_v._Dennis dbr:Ash_v._Tyson_Foods,_Inc. dbr:Ministry_of_Defense_and_Support_for_Ar..._of_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_v._Elahi dbr:Whitman_v._DOT dbr:Whitman_v._Dep't_of_Transportation dbr:Whitman_v._Department_of_Transportation dbr:Per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States,_2005_term dbr:Eberhart_v._United_States dbr:Kane_v._Garcia_Espitia dbr:Lab._Corp._of_Am._Holdings_v._Metabolite_Labs. dbr:Bradshaw_v._Richey dbr:Gonzales_v._Thomas dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._FEC dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._Federal_Election_Comm'n dbr:Wisconsin_Right_to_Life,_Inc._v._Federal_Election_Commission |
| is foaf:primaryTopic of | wikipedia-en:2005_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
