================================
U.S. Supreme Court

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno (05/15/06 - No. 04–1704)
In a suit brought by taxpayers alleging that their local and state tax burdens were increased by certain taxbreaks for a car manufacturer, a judgment finding that a state tax credit violated the Commerce Clause is vacated where plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the state franchise tax credit.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/041704.html

U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals

McConkie v. Nichols (05/15/06 - No. 05-2727)
Summary judgment for defendant police officer in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 case alleging violation of right to substantive due process is affirmed where the officer did not engage in conduct that would shock the conscience.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/052727.html

Pagan v. Calderon (05/16/06 - No. 05-1811)
Denial of motion to dismiss on grounds of qualified immunity in a suit against the governor of Puerto Rico is reversed where the plaintiff corporation failed to show that: 1) the defendant's actions both shocked the conscience and deprived it of a protected interest; and 2) the alleged disparate treatment resulted from a gross abuse of power.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/051811.html

McCloskey v. Mueller (05/16/06 - No. 05-2690)
Dismissal of suit for damages against federal government and murderer is affirmed where: 1) the government had no duty to the deceased to prevent the actions of a third party; 2) the plaintiffs did not allege any action by the federal government under the color of state law; and 3) the court properly dismissed a state claim upon dismissal of all federal claims.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/052690.html

U.S. v. Barrow (05/17/06 - No. 04-2722)
Conviction for importing cocaine and possession with intent to distribute is affirmed where: 1) a search of defendant's possessions was a routine border search and no evidentiary hearing was required; 2) defendant did not show prejudice because of late service of information; 3) all evidence was properly admitted; and 4) there were no sentencing errors.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/042722.html

Goodrich v. Hall (05/18/06 - No. 05-2166)
Denial of habeas corpus petition is affirmed where the presentation of improper evidence before the grand jury was not so blatant as to call into doubt the fundamental fairness of the judicial process and the petit jury was not presented with the same improper evidence in reaching its verdict.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/052166.html

New Hampshire Motor Transp. Ass'n v. Rowe (05/19/06 - No. 05-2136)
Summary judgment for plaintiffs in suit involving state restrictions on sale and deliver of tobacco products is affirmed where federal law preempts the state regulation, but reversed where the state law ban on importing contraband tobacco had only a tenuous effect on delivery services and did not warrant preemption.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/1st/052136.html

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

Smith v. Hollins (05/15/06 - No. 03-2250)
Denial of habeas petition is vacated where the state court failed to make the requisite particularized findings necessary to justify the decision upholding the state trial court's exclusion of petitioner's brother and sister during testimony of two undercover officers, unless they consented to sitting behind a screen.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/032250p.pdf

Betancourt v. Bloomberg (05/18/06 - No. 04-0926)
Dismissal of claims challenging section 16-122(b) of the New York City Administrative Code, which prohibits leaving boxes and erecting obstructions in public spaces, is affirmed over claims that section 16-122(b) is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that plaintiff was arrested without probable cause.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/040926p.pdf

U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Morris v. Powell (05/15/06 - No. 05-40578)
Retaliation against a prisoner is actionable only if it is capable of deterring a person of ordinary firmness from further exercising his constitutional rights. Summary judgment for defendants-prison officials in an inmate's suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 for alleged retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right to use the prison grievance system is vacated in part where the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's claims failed to allege more than a de minimis retaliatory act so as to establish a constitutional violation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/5th/0540578cv0p.pdf

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Pagan v. Fruchey (05/19/06 - No. 04-4414)
Summary judgment for defendants, a village and its police chief, on claims arising out of a village ordinance proscribing a resident's ability to display a for-sale sign on a vehicle parked on a public street is affirmed over his First Amendment challenge to the ordinance where the ordinance directly advanced asserted governmental interests in traffic safety and aesthetics, and was not more extensive than necessary to serve those interests.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/044414p.pdf

U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

DeLuna v. City of Rockford (05/18/06 - No. 05-1337)
Summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 and wrongful death action is affirmed where: 1) the use of deadly force was reasonable; 2) the plaintiff failed to allege any facts in support of her state law wrongful death claim; and 3) nothing about the post-incident interview would suggest to plaintiff that she was not free to leave.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/051337p.pdf

U.S. v. Santiago-Ochoa (05/19/06 - No. 04-3338)
Conviction for illegal re-entry is affirmed over defendant's due process claim , but sentence is vacated and a limited remand ordered where the sentencing judge treated the sentencing guidelines as mandatory.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/043338p.pdf

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals

Jacobsen v. Dep't of Transp. (05/15/06 - No. 04-3716)
Summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in a suit alleging that defendants' policies relating to placement of plaintiff's newspaper vending machines at Iowa highway rest areas violated the First Amendment where the sidewalks at issue were nonpublic fora, the restrictions were content and viewpoint-neutral, and were reasonably tailored to meet governmental interests in pedestrian safety and access.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/043716p.pdf

St. Charles County v. State of Wisconsin (05/16/06 - No. 05-2808)
Grant of judgment on the pleadings for defendant-state in an action by a county to recover expenses incurred for jailing a fugitive pending extradition is affirmed where the Eleventh Amendment barred the suit since the state never expressly consented to being sued in federal court and constructive waiver of sovereign immunity is not permitted.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/052808p.pdf

US v. White Plume (05/17/06 - No. 05-1654)
In a case involving marijuana or hemp cultivation by a member of an Indian tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is affirmed over claims that the district court erred: 1) by holding that industrial hemp was subject to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA); 2) by finding that the Treaty of Fort Laramie did not grant a tribe the right to cultivate hemp; and 3) by failing to find that regulating hemp under the CSA constitutes a due process and equal protection violation.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/051654p.pdf

Lee v. Spellings (05/18/06 - No. 03-3819)
On remand from the Supreme Court, a previous opinion and judgment for plaintiff holding that a time limit in the Debt Collection Act barred the Secretary of Education from offsetting a portion of plaintiff's social security benefits to repay a student-loan debt is vacated in light of recent Supreme Court precedent, and over plaintiff's due process and laches claims.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033819p.pdf

Thomas v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm'rs (05/18/06 - No. 05-2655)
The St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners is not an arm of the state of Missouri for purposes of Eleventh Amendment Immunity.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/052655p.pdf

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist. (05/17/06 - No. 03-56499)
A prior opinion, holding that parents of school children did not possess, under the Substantive Due Process Clause or the right to privacy, a constitutional right to limit the information that public schools make available to students, is reaffirmed with amendments to specific language in the opinion.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0356499p.pdf

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Walker (05/18/06 - No. 02-4105, 02-4123)
A constitutional provision imposing a supermajority requirement for enactment of initiatives on specific topics does not implicate the First Amendment freedom of speech.
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/10th/024105.html

U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

US v. Shannon (05/16/06 - No. 05-13491)
Career offender sentence based on two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense within 15 years of the instant offense is affirmed even though defendant committed the prior offenses outside the 15-year window preceding the instant offense, as the sentences imposed for those convictions resulted in defendant being incarcerated during some part of the 15-year window.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0513491p.pdf

Goodman v. Ray (05/17/06 - No. 02-10168)
Court of appeals vacates: 1) prior opinion in same case; 2) dismissal of plaintiff's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and claims under ADA; 3) denial of summary judgment for plaintiff, and for certain defendants as to plaintiff's ADA claims; and 4) summary judgment for certain defendants as to plaintiff's ADA claims.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0210168p.pdf

Miller v. King (05/17/06 - No. 02-13348)
Summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and ADA claims is vacated in order to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint to specify on a claim-by-claim basis and in separate counts: 1) the specific conduct he alleges violates the Eighth Amendment; 2) to what extent the alleged conduct underlying plaintiff's constitutional claims also violates the ADA; 3) what specific conduct allegedly violates the ADA but does not violate the Eighth Amendment; 4) as to his Eighth Amendment claims under section 1983, whether the defendant warden is sued individually or in an official capacity or both; and 5) as to his ADA claims, whether the claim is brought against defendant warden in his official capacity, the defendant State of Georgia, and/or the defendant Department of Corrections.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/11th/0213348p.pdf