Home

| Table of Forms

Law Journals

| Law Students

| iLaw Dictionar

| News

				United States
				Constitutional Law
				US Supreme Court Case Summaries
				April 26, 2000

US Codes

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

|California Evidence Code

| California Rules of Court

| Federal Courts

| Lawyers

A Legal and Business Portal-Home Page

War

On Terrorism

Special Report

USA Constitutional Law
Table of Contents: Primary

United States Constitutional Law
United States Supreme
Court Case Summaries
April 26, 2000

United States constitutional Law
United States Supreme Court Case Summaries
April 25, 2000

U.S. Supreme Court Opinions
Case Summaries - April 26, 2000

--------------------------------

BUSINESS LAW

BECK v. PRUPIS, et al. (4/26/00 - No. 98-1480)
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued November 3, 1999--Decided April 26, 2000
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) creates a
civil cause of action for "[a]ny person injured in his business or property
by reason of a violation of section 1962." 18 U.S.C. §1964(c). Subsection
(d) of §1962 forbids "any person to conspire to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of [§1962]." Petitioner is a
former president, CEO, director, and shareholder of Southeastern Insurance
Group (SIG). Respondents are former senior officers and directors of SIG who
allegedly conspired to and did engage in acts of racketeering. Petitioner
alleged that after he discovered respondents' unlawful conduct and contacted
regulators, respondents orchestrated a scheme to remove him from the
company. Petitioner sued respondents, asserting, among other things, a
§1964(c) cause of action for respondents' alleged conspiracy to violate
§§1962(a), (b), and (c). Petitioner alleged that his injury was proximately
caused by an overt act--namely, the termination of his employment--done in
furtherance of respondents' conspiracy, and that §1964(c) therefore provided
a cause of action.
Held: Injury caused by an overt act that is not an act of racketeering or
otherwise wrongful under RICO does not give rise to a cause of action under
§1964(c) for a violation of §1962(d). A civil conspiracy plaintiff cannot
bring suit under RICO based on injury caused by any act in furtherance of a
conspiracy that might have caused the plaintiff injury. Rather, such
plaintiff must allege injury from an act that is analogous to an "ac[t] of a
tortious character," see 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts, §876, Comment b,
meaning an act that is independently wrongful under RICO. The specific type
of act that is analogous to an act of a tortious character may depend on the
underlying substantive violation the defendant is alleged to have committed.
Because respondents' alleged overt act in furtherance of their conspiracy
was not an act of racketeering and is not independently wrongful under any
substantive provision of the statute, petitioner does not have a cause of
action under §1964(c). Pp. 6-13.
162 F. 3d 1090, affirmed.
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J.,
and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-1480.html
BUSINESS LAWBECK v. PRUPIS, et al. (4/26/00 - No. 98-1480)USACL

CRIMINAL LAW

SLACK v. MCDANIEL, WARDEN, et al. (4/26/00 - No. 98-6322)
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued October 4, 1999--Decided April 26, 2000
After petitioner Slack was convicted of second-degree murder in Nevada and
his direct appeal was unsuccessful, he filed, in 1991, a federal habeas
corpus petition under 28 U. S. C. §2254. Because he wished to litigate
claims he had not yet presented to the Nevada courts, but could not do so
under the rule requiring complete exhaustion of state remedies, see Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U. S. 509
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=455&in
vol=509, Slack filed a motion to hold his federal petition in abeyance while
he returned to state court. The Federal District Court ordered the habeas
petition dismissed without prejudice, granting Slack leave to file an
application to renew upon exhausting state remedies. After unsuccessful
state postconviction proceedings, Slack filed anew in the federal court in
1995, presenting 14 claims for relief. The State moved to dismiss, arguing
that (1) Slack's was a mixed petition raising some claims which had been
presented to the state courts and some which had not, and (2) under the
established Ninth Circuit rule, claims not raised in Slack's 1991 federal
petition had to be dismissed as an abuse of the writ.
Held:
1. Where a habeas petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of
his petition after April 24, 1996 (AEDPA's effective date), the right to
appeal is governed by the requirements now found at §2253(c)--which
provides, inter alia, that such an appeal may not be taken unless a circuit
Justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability (COA), §2253(c)(1),
and that the COA may issue only if the applicant has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right, §2253(c)(2)--even though
the habeas petition was filed in the district court before AEDPA's effective
date. Pp. 4-6.
2. When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a COA
should issue (and an appeal of the district court's order may be taken) if
the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling. Pp. 6-9.
3. A habeas petition which is filed after an initial petition was dismissed
without adjudication on the merits for failure to exhaust state remedies is
not a "second or successive" petition as that term is understood in the
habeas corpus context. Pp. 9-13.
Reversed and remanded.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, Part I of which was
unanimous, Part II of which was joined by Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor,
Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., and Parts III and IV of which were joined
by Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer,
JJ. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the
judgment, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an
opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Thomas, J.,
joined.
To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/000/98-6322.html
CRIMINAL LAWSLACK v. MCDANIEL, WARDEN, et al. (4/26/00 - No. 98-6322)USACL

-------------------------------------------------

Direct Links to Findlaw Resources
FINDLAW US SUPREME COURT CASE SUMMARIES
http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
You May FREELY Redistribute This E-Mail in Whole
FindLaw Law Library - legal guides, memos and briefs
http://library.findlaw.com
FindLaw Professionals
http://profs.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Lawyer Marketing
http://marketing.findlaw.com/
FindLaw Tech Deals
http://techdeals.findlaw.com
http://my.findlaw.com
My FindLaw is a personalization feature that allows lawyers and legal
professionals to create their own My FindLaw homepage. Users can now
customize the vast amount of materials available from FindLaw, including
legal news, federal and state case law, legal job listings, message boards
and other invaluable Web resources, saving them time as they use the
Internet for legal research and business. FindLaw visitors can now easily
create a unique page tailored to meet their information and research needs.
RESEARCH FASTER with My FindLaw--and My FindLaw is for FREE :)
http://my.findlaw.com
Tired of paying OUTRAGEOUS RATES for life insurance?
Is your insurance company charging YOU too much? Find out!
Compare rates from top-rated insurance companies at
ReliaQuote.com Rated #1 by Forbes and SmartMoney:
http://www.reliaquote.com/findlaw

________________
Have a BEAUTIFUL DAY!!!!

United States Supreme Court Case Summaries 04-25-2000
April 25, 2000INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW NELSON v. ADAMS USA, INC.,
USACL
BUSINESS LAWBECK v. PRUPIS, et al. (4/26/00 - No. 98-1480)(RICO)