Business Law Case Study from Textbook - Exam I

Standefer v United States

Chief Justice Warren Burger said that juries can reach different agreements on the same case. Shows the fairness of the law.

W.C. Ritchie and Co. v Wayman

Women's Ten-Hour Law prevented woman from working more than 10 hour work today W.C. Ritchie and Co sued Illinois state court and state court said it was constitutional

V Secret Catalogue, Inc. and Victoria Secret Stores, Inc. v Moseley

Victorias Secret sued Victoria's Little Secret, a store that sold adult videos, novelties, sex toys and racy lingerie, alleging a violation of the Federal Dilution Act of 1995. The Case was decided by the U.S. supreme court in favor of the Moseley's when the court found there was no showing of actual dilutions by the junior marks, as required by the statute. Congress overturned the Supreme Court decision by enacting the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, which requires the easier showing of a likelihood of dilution by the senior mark. The U.S. District court applied the new likelihood of confusion test, found a presumption of tarnishment of the Victoria's secret mark and held against the Mosley's. The Mosley's appealed. Issue: is there tarnishment of the Victoria's Secret senior mark by the Moseley's use of the junior marks Victor's Secret and Victor's little Secret? Decision: the U.S. court of appeals affirmed the U.S. districts court's judgment in favor of Victoria's Secret

Maryland Vs. King

In 2003, a man armed with a gun and is faced concealed broke into a woman's home and raped her. They collected DNA of the perpetrator. In 2009, Alonzo King was arrested for 1st and 2nd degree assault for menacing a group of people and his DNA was taken and matched to the rape scene. King alleged that the DNA taken when he was booked in 2009 violated the Fourth Amendment as an unreasonable search and seizure and therefore could not be use to convict him of the 2003 rape. The court of appeals of Maryland agreed. Issue: did Maryland's collection of King's DNA during the booking procedure in 2008 constitute an unreasonable search and seizure? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the taking of the DNA from King at the time of booking was a reasonable search and seizure and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals of Maryland.

Minnesota v Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians

Tribe sued Minnesota, seeking declamatory judgement that they retained the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights provided in the 1837 treaty and an injunction to prevent minnesota from interfering with those rights

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc v Aereo, Inc.

Aereo, Inc offers subscribers broadcast television over the internet for a monthly fee. American Broadcasting Companies who own the copyrights to the programs Aereo streams sued Aereo for copyright infringement and sought an injunction against Aereo. Aereo argued it does not perform the copyrighted programs publicly because it streams them individually to customers. The U.S. district court denied the injunction and U.S. Court of appeals affirmed. Issue: has Aereo engaged in copyright infringement? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that Aereo engaged in copyright infringement

Alice Corporation v CLS Bank International

Alice Corporation owns patents on computers that calculate the intermediate settlement risk of a financial exchange. CLS Bank International sued Alice Corporation seeking a declaratory judgment that the corporation's patents are invalid. The U.S. District court held that the claims were patent ineligible because they merely use computers directed to the abstract idea of minimizing risk. The en bank U.S. court of appeals affirmed the judgment. Alice appealed to Supreme Court. Issue: are the claims patent eligible, or are they patent ineligible abstract ideas? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that Alice corporation's claims of using generic computer implementation adds nothings of substance to the underlying abstract idea of intermediate settlement and therefore patent ineligible

United States v Barrington

Barrington and two other friends concocted a scheme at FAMU to access FAMU's internet-based grading system. They changed many people's grades. They were indicted and charges with the federal crime of conspiring to commit wire fraud using a protected computer, fraud using a protected computer, and identity theft. Barrington denied his involvement but another classmate involved testified against him and he was charged as guilty. Barrington appealed. Issue: Was Barrington guilty of the crimes chargers and was the sentence appropriate? Decision: The U.S. court of appeals affirmed Barrington's conviction and prison sentence.

Facebook vs Winklevoss

Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narenda started a company called Connect U and claimed that Zuckerberg stole their idea and created Facebook. The court ordered the parties to mediate the dispute, the parties signed a paper in which the Winklevosses agreed to give up their claims in exchange for cash and FB stock. The Winklevosses brought claims against Facebook and Zuckerberg, alleging that fraud occurred because the Facebook shares were not worth 36 dollars per share at the time of the agreement but only 8.88. They wanted to rescind the settlement agreement, the U.S. district court enforced it. Issue: is the settlement agreement enforceable? Decision: The U.S. court of appeals upheld the decision of the U.S. district that enforced the settlement agreement.

Rostker v Goldberg

Is the draft registration law, which prohibits woman from entering in the draft and only requires men to, constitutional? The U.S. Supreme Court held it as constitutional

Matamoros vs Starbucks Corporation

Starbucks baristas filed a class action lawsuit against Starbucks alleging that Starbucks policy of permitting shift supervisors to share in pooled tips violate the Tips Act of Massachusetts. The baristas won and Starbucks appealed, saying the people in the class would not certified Issue: was the case properly certified as class action? Decision: the U.S. court of appeal upheld the U.S. districts court's decision certifying the class action and the award of 14 million to the class of baristas.

International Shoe Company v State of Washington

The State of Washington assessed an unemployment tax on International Shoe for the sales representative that it had in the state. Issue: Is there enough minimum contact in this state for them to pay the tax? Decision: the Supreme Court of Washington rules against International Shoe and the Supreme Court reaffirmed this decision

Cummins v BIC USA, Inc

A baby CAP, was hurt by a lighter than he stole from his father's car, that had the child safety guard removed from it. The conservator for CAP sued BIC USA, to recover damages for the injuries. BIC defended, alleging that the BIC lighter was not defective because of a supervening event. The lawyer for BIC made some remarks that were considered inappropriate toward the remover of the lighter guard. The trial court found that the light was not defective because the guard was removed before the incident. The plaintiff's appealed for a new trial, stating that the last remark made the jury prejudiced. Issue: Did the BIC's lawyer's remarks in the closing statement prejudice the jury? Decision: The U.S. Court of appeals affirmed the judgement in favor of the defendant BIC.

Romasanta v Mitton

A landlord leased a motel he owned to lessees for 10 years, the lessees had an option to extend the lease for an additional 10 years as long as they told the landlord 3 months prior to the 10 years end. The lessees told the landlord orally 3 months before that the intended to extend the lease and also instructed their accouterment to give the landlord written notice. The accountant failed. When they heard the accountant failed, they delivered the written notice to the landlord 13 days too late. The landlord rejected it and instituted a lawsuit to evict the lessees. The trial and appellate courts held in favor of the lessees. Shows doctrine of equity, because the harm to the lessor is slight and the hardship to the lessee is severe.

Averyt vs Wal-mart Stores

Averyt was a truck driver that fell on a grease spill outside of Walmart and sued. Walmart denied that the grease spill existed and then said that the grease spill did and they took all necessary steps to clean it up. Averyt won the case. Walmart made a motion for a new trial, alleging nondisclosure of the Greeley report by plaintiffs before being introduced at trial and unfair prejudice of the jury. Issue: was the jury unduly prejudiced against Walmart? Decision: The Supreme court of Colorado reverse the trial court's order granting a new trial, thus upholding the 11 million dollar award to plaintiff Averyt.

Patch v Hillerich & Bradsby Company

Brandon Patch was killed by a baseball hit by an aluminum bat. Brandon's parents sued for strict liability, alleging that the Bradsby Company failed to warn Brandon of the effect of an aluminum bat. Bradsby stated that there was no defect in failure to warn and that it did not have a duty to warn a nonuser of the bat. The jury found failure to warn. Bradsby appealed. Issue: Did H&B fail to warn Brandon of the increased risk of injury caused by its aluminum bat? Decision: the supreme court of Montana upheld the jury's finding of failure to warn

Chanel, Inc v Zhixian

Chanel sued Zhixian for trademark infringement, but could not locate the defendant because it was online. Issue: should the court grant plaintiff Chanel authority to serve the defendant by email? Decision: the U.S. district court granted plaintiff Chanel's motion for alternative service of process on the defendant

United States v Williams

Coca-Cola employee Joya Williams was arrested for trying to sell Coca-Cola's trade secrets to PepsiCo Joya Williams was arrested and sentenced to 8 years in jail.

Walmart Stores, Inc. vs Cockrell

Cockrell was questioned by an employee of Walmart and the employee made him take off his bandage from a very serious surgery he had just had, thinking that Cockrell was hiding something in it. Cockrell sued for false imprisonment, Walmart defended using shopkeeper's privilege. The trial court found in favor of Cockrell. Walmart appealed. Issue : does the shopkeeper's privilege protect Walmart from liability under the circumstances of this case? Decision: the court of appeals upheld the trial court's findings

Brown v Board of Education

Decision challenged separate but equal doctrine as it applied to public elementary schools A unanimous Supreme Court reversed prior precedent and held that the separate but equal doctrine violated The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Shows the flexibility of the law.

MacDermid, Inc v Deiter

Deiter forwarded confidential information about her employer, MacDermid, Inc. to herself. She committed this crime in Canada. Issue: Since Deiter lived in Canada, she claimed that the U.S. District Court in Connecticut did not have jurisdiction over her. Decision: The U.S. court of appeals held that the U.S. District Court in Connecticut had personal jurisdiction over Deiter and allowed the case to go to trial in Connecticut

Ehlen v Melvin

Ehlen signed a document titled "Purchase Agreement" offering to purchase real estate owned by the Melvin's for 850000. Two days after the offer, the Melvins modified the terms of the agreement by correcting the spelling of their name and the description of the property to be sold "as is", that the mineral rights conveyed by the Mevlins were limited to the rights that they owned, and that the property was subject to a federal wetland easement and an agricultural lease. They made the changes and mailed it to Ehlen, when they did not hear back, the notified Ehland that the transaction was terminated. Ehlen sued the Melvins to enforce the the Purchase Agreement, stating that there was a binding and enforceable contract. The trial court held that the Mevlins had mad a counter offer that had not been accepted by Ehlen, and therefore there was no contract. Ehlen appealed. Issue: was a counter offer made by the Melvins that was accepted by Ehlen? Decision: the supreme court of North Dakota held that no agreement existed between Ehlen and the Mevlins.

Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc v Barlett

FDA approved sunlindac under the brand name Clinoril. When the Clinoril patent expired, the law permitted other pharmaceutical companies to sell generic version under their own brand names. Federal law requires the label to be the same as the original drug. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company sold a generic version and Barlett had severe reactions (toxic epidermal necrolysis) which was not stated as a side effect on the label. Barlett sued for product liability under New Hampshire Law. The jury of the U.S. District court found Mutual liable, and U.S. court of appeals affirmed the award. Issue: Does the federal drug labeling law preempt a stricter state drug labeling law? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that federal drug labeling law preempted New Hampshire's stricter labeling law under the Supremacy Clause. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. court of appeal's decision that was in favor of Barlett.

Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC v Sony Pictures Classics, Inc

Faulkner sued Sony for copyright infringement because the company said a 8 second line of Faulkner's in the movie Midnight. Sony defended, arguing that the use qualifies as fair use and is not copyright infringement. Issue: Is the paraphrased use of Faulkner's quote from his book Requiem in Allen's movie Midnight fair use? Decision: The U.S. district court held that Sony's use of Faulkner's paraphrased quotation from his book is de minimus (minimal) and faire and not copyright infringement.

Fteja v Facebook, Inc.

Fteja sued Facebook for wrongfully deactivating his account and for emotional distress. Fteja is from New York and Facebook is headquartered in California. Facebook moved the case to the U.S. district court Issue: is the forum-selection clause in the Facebook agreement enforceable? Decision: the U.S. district court for the southern district of New York enforced the forum-selection clause of Facebook's terms and service and transferred Fteja's case to the U.S. district court of California

Nitro Lift Technologies, LLC vs Howard

Howard and Schneider worked for Nitro Lift Technologies and signed a contract saying if they left and worked for competitors, any issues arising would be solved by an arbitrator. When they started working for competitors, they were served with a demand for arbitration to enforce the noncompetition agreement. They sued and asked Oklahoma state court to declare the agreement null and void. The supreme court of Oklahoma held that the state court and not an arbitrator should hear and decide the dispute. Issue: is the contract dispute between the parties subject to arbitration? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the contract dispute was to be heard by the arbitrator and not by the Oklahoma state court

Texas v Holder

Is the coverage provision of the Voting Rights Act that singles out several states for the federal clearance requirement constitutional? the 15th Amendment stated that the rights of citizens of the US to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the federal or state government on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude The US Supreme Court held that the coverage provision of the Voting Rights Act that requires clearance by the federal government for covered states to make changes to voting districts and other requirements is unconstitutional

Jones v City of Seattle, Washington

Jones fell through a hole where the fire pole was while walking to the bathroom one night in a fire station. Jones' sister sue, alleging that city has been negligent in failing to block the accidental access to the pole hole. The jury found that the city's negligence was the sole cause of Mark's injuries and so did the court of appeals. Seattle appealed to the Supreme Court of Washington Issue: the the award of damages proper? Decision: the supreme court of Washington upheld the damage award to the plaintiff against the city of Seattle

Domingue v Cameco

Judice ran over his coworker Domingue and he was killed. Domingue's widow filed a strict liability lawsuit against Cameco, alleging that a defect in design of the dump truck caused a forward blind spot. Trial court found Cameco's responsible. Cameco appealed. The court of appeals upheld the trial court judgement.

Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Company v Dolinksi

Leo Dolinski purchase a bottle of soda from a vending machine and became sick, the contents of the bottle had a decomposed body of a mouse. Doliskini sued the Shoshone Coca-Cola bottling company on the doctrine of strict liability. The trial court adopted the doctrine of strict liability. Shoshone appealed. Issue: Was there a defect in the manufacture of the Squirt bottle that caused the plaintiff's injuries? Decision: the Supreme court of Nevada adopted the doctrine of strict liability and held that there was a defect in manufacture.

Martinez v houston McLane Company, LLC

Martinez was at a baseball game and was hit by a ball and suffered injuries. She sued the owner of the team, Houston McClane Company. for negligence. Houston responded with the defense "baseball rule" which holds that spectators at baseball games attend at their own risk. The trial court granted Houston's motion for summary judgement. Martinez appealed Issue: is the defendant baseball owner liable for negligence? Decision: the court of appeals upheld the trial court's decision that the owner of the Houston Astros was not negligent.

Broadcast Music, Inc. v McDade & Sons, Inc.

McDade owned a country bar and had performers sing there. Broadcast Music sued because some performers were singing songs without the proper licenses. McDade argued that it had not committed trademark infringement and that trademark law did not apply to owners of small establishments. Issue: Are the defendant's liable for trademark infringement? Decision: the U.S. district court held that the defendants had engaged in copyright infringement and issues a permeant injunction against the defendant's infringement of copyrighted musical compositions licensed by broadcast music, inc.

Lieback v McDonald's Restaurants

McDonald's coffee spilled on Lieback's lap and caused serious damages, the jury concluded that McDonald's acted recklessly and sided with Lieback.

James v Meow Media, Inc

Michael Carneal played violent video games and watched violent movies. He took a gun into his high school and shot several of his shots. The parents of the three students killed sued the video game producers, alleging that the defendants were negligent in producing and distributing such games to Carneal. The U.S. district court held that the defendants did not owe or breach a duty to the plaintiffs, and were not liable. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Issue: are the video and movie producers liable to the plaintiffs for selling and licensing violent video games and movies to Control, who killed the plaintiffs' 3 children? Decision: the U.S. court of appeals held that the defendant video game and movie producers were not liable to the plaintiffs

Schute, Attorney General of Michigan vs Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

Michigan passed a constitutional amendment that did not allow colleges or universities to use race as a decision maker in accepting students. They were sued by affirmative action organizations, stating that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. district court upheld the amendment, the U.S. Court of appeals held that the amendment violated the clause. Issue: does the amendment to the Michigan Constitution that eliminates race-based preferences in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause? Decision: in a plurality decision of 6 to 2, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause

Murphy vs McDonal's Restaurants of Ohio

Murphy fell on ice that was underneath a median covered in snow and sued McDonald's for negligence. McDonald's moved for summary judgement and McDonald's was found not guilty. Murphy appealed. Issue: Is there a genuine issue of material fact that would deny a grant of summary judgment? Decision: the court of appeals held that there was no genuine issue of material fact and affirmed the trial's court's grant of summary judgement to McDonald's

Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics

Myriad obtained a patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office based on its discovery of two genes that are linked to breast cancer. The Association for Molecular Pathology sued Myriad, stating that the patent was invalid. The U.S. district court held that Myriad's claim was invalid because it covered a product of nature and therefore unpatentable. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that the isolated DNA was patent eligible. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review. Issue: Is a naturally occurring segment of DNA patent eligible? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.

Navarette v California

Navarette ran a girl off the road with his car and she called the cops. When the cops approached, they smelled marijuana and found 30 pounds his car. The two Navarette brothers moved to suppress the evidence and said that the search violated the fourth amendment because they lacked criminal activity. The California trial court and California court of appeals agreed to deny their motion and sentenced them to 90 days in jail plus 3 years probation. Issue: did the stop and search of the truck violate the Fourth Amendment? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the stop and search of the truck based on the caller's tip comported with the requirements of the 4th amendment and as therefore lawful.

Snyder v Phelps

Phelps and his followers in the Westboro Baptist Church picket at military funerals about how God hates and punishes the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, in America's military. Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in combat and Phelps picketed at his funeral. Synder's father filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Church and Phelps in the U.S. District Court, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Westboro argued that that their speech was protected by the first amendment. The U.S. District court found Phelps guilty and the U.S. court of appeals held that the First amendment protected Phelps's speech. Issue: Does the Free Speech Clause of the 1st amendment shield church members from tort liability for their picketing speech at funerals? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected Westboro's speech in the case.

Wrench LLC v Taco Bell Corporation

Rinks and Shields had the mascot of Psycho Chihuahua and Taco Bell asked them to create art boards combining the chihuahua with taco Bell. The taco bell executives gave a formal presentation of the concept of using the chihuahua without entering into an express contract with Wrench LLC, Rinks or Sheilds. Taco Bell hired an outside advertising agency, Chiat/Day which were given the materials regarding Psycho Chihuahua. 3 months later, they started using the chihuahua and paid nothing to Wrench LLC, Rinks and Shield. Wrench LCC, Rinks and Shiedl sued taco Bells for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The U.S. district court agreed. Issue: have the plaintiffs Wrench LLC, Rinks and Shields stated a cause of action for the breach of an implied-in-fact contract? Decision: the U.S. court of appeals held that the plaintiffs had stated a proper cause of action against defendant Taco Bell for breach of an implied-in-fact contract. The court of appeals remanded the case for trial.

Aleo vs SLB Toys USA

Robins Aleo slipped and fell on a slide that was not tested correctly and that was bought a Toys R Us. Michael, Robin's husband sued for gross negligence. The jury found Toys R Us liable for gross negligence. Toys R Us Appealed. Issue: Was Toys R Us grossly negligent? Decision: the appellate court upheld the trial court's finding of gross negligence.

Cavazos, Acting Warden v Smith

Smith, Tomeka's mother slept on the floor next to baby Etzel. Etzel was dead several hours later from Shaken baby syndrome. Smith was arrest and charged with the crime of assault on a child resulting in death. Smith was found guilty and sentenced for 15 years prison. Smith eventually appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th circuit, which determined that there was no evidence to permit an expert conclusion regarding death by SBS. The case was appealed the U.S. Supreme Court. Issue: Can an appellate court substitute its judgement of facts introduced at trial for that of the jury? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the U.S. court of appeals and let the jury verdict state.

POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Company

Supreme Court of the United States Can a private party bring an unfair competition lawsuit under the Lanham Act abasing a competitor that challenges the truthfulness of a food label? Lanham Act: allows one competitor to sue another to recover damages for unfair competition arising from false and misleading product descriptions The Supreme Court held that POM can use the Lanham Act as a valid argument to sue Coca Cola

Heart of Atlanta Motel vs United States

The Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to blacks. Congress enacted the Civil Rights act of 1964, which made it illegal to discriminate based on race. The owner of the hotel said that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded the Federal Government's to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause The U.S. Supra Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 properly regulated interstate commerce and were Constitutional

Burwell vs Hobby Lobby

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 allowed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to adopt a regulation that requires for profit corporations to provide contraceptive methods to employees. Hobby Lobby and the Greens sued HHS for violating RFRA and sought an injunction against the enforcement of the regulation. U.S. District court denied it. The U.S. District court held the it did violate RFRA. Issue: do owners of closely held corporations have to provide health insurance coverage to their employees that violate the owners' held religious beliefs? Decision: U.S. Supreme Court held that owners of closely held corporations do not have to provide birth control.

Marder v Lopez

The movie Flashdance is based off Maureen Marder, who signed a general released contract and was given 2300 dollars. When Paramount released the movie, Marder brought a lawsuit against Paramount, seeking a declaration that she had rights as a coauthor of Flashdance and a co-owned with paramount of the copyright to Flashdance. The district court dismissed, Marder appealed Issue: the the general release Marder signed an enforceable contract? Decision: the U.S. court of appeals held that the general release Marder signed was an enforceable contract and affirmed the judgement of the district court to dismiss.

Brown, Governor of California v Entertainment Merchants Association

The state of California enacted a state statute that prohibits the sale of violent video games to minors. Members of the video game and software industries challenged the act. The U.S. district court concluded that the act violated the First Amendment and the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Issue: Does the California act that restricts violent video game violate the first amendment? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California act violated the First Amendment

McCullen vs Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts

The state of Massachusetts enacted a statutes that makes it a crime to knowingly stand on a public ay or sidewalk w/in 35 feet of an extract or drive to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed. Petitioners who were trying to prevent women from having abortions sued, saying it violated their first amendment rights. The U.S. district court and U.S. court of appeals upheld the Massachusetts statute Issue: Does the Massachusetts statute violate the free speech rights of the First Amendment? Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts statute violates the 1st amendment

Ragland v Commonwealth of Kentucky

Trent DiGiuro was shot and killed while celebrating his 21st birthday. 6 years later, Shane Laytons Ragland's ex girlfriend told police that Ragland killed DiGiuro because Ragland had caused him to be blackballed by a fraternity. The rifle used was recovered at Ragland's mother's apartment, like his ex gf said it would be. Ragland was sentenced to 30 years prison and he appealed because Ragland stated that he received an inadequate Miranda warning, never waived any of his Miranda rights, asserted the right to counsel. Issue: Was defendant Ragland properly given his Miranda rights? Decision: the supreme court of Kentucky held that appellant Ragland has been read his Miranda rights and had waived his right to an attorney. Thus, any statements he made during interrogation were valid.

Riley v California and the United States v Wurie

Two cases combined - 1.Riley was stopped for driving with expired registration tags and a search of the car turned up two concealed and loaded firearms. The police went through Riley's smartphone - and found a photo of Riley in front of car suspected to be involved in a shooting a few weeks earlier. Riley was convicted of all charges and was sentenced to 15 years prison. 2. Police observed Wurie making an apparent drug sale from a car. The officer arrested Wurie and seized two cell phones from him. The police tracked where the calls were coming from and it led to Wurie's apartment which they searched and found drugs, firearm and ammunition and cash. Wurie was charged and sentenced to 262 months in prison. Both Riley and Wurie said they were searched unreasonably and were denied. Issue: Can the police, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that the police cannot, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone from an individual who has been arrested.

United States v Windsor

Windsor and Spyers are a gay couple lawfully married in Canada. Spyer died and left her entire estate to Windsor. In 1996, DOMA defined a spouse as a person who is the opposite sex and denies same-sex married partners benefits. Windsor filed a lawsuit because she was not able to claim the federal tax exemption for surviving spouses, stating that section 3 of DOMA violated the guarantee of equal protection in the Constitution. the U.S. district court and the U.S. court of appeals ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional. Issue: is section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional? Decision: the U.S. Supreme Court held that section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional, making federal benefits equally available to same-sex married couples