Sign in
United States Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

United States Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

United States decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Bankruptcy

In re Clayton James Sherwood and Martina R. Sherwood

The bankruptcy court overruled the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objection and held that Illinois’s amended exemption statute allows exemption of more than one item of jewelry.

  • Illinois exemption statute
  • Jewelry exemption
  • Chapter 13 trustee objection
  • Personal property exemptions
  • Bankruptcy
  • Exemptions
Read case analysis
Erisa M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension

M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of IAM Nat. Pension

The Supreme Court held that ERISA does not require actuarial assumptions for withdrawal liability to be selected on or before the measurement date.

  • Withdrawal liability
  • Actuarial assumptions
  • Measurement date
  • Retroactivity
  • Arbitration
  • Erisa
Read case analysis
International law Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

The Supreme Court held that Title III of the LIBERTAD Act can cover use of confiscated physical property itself, not just the plaintiff’s former property interest.

  • Cuban liberty and democratic solidarity act (title iii)
  • Confiscation
  • Trafficking in confiscated property
  • Foreign claims settlement commission certification
  • Counterfactual analysis
  • Due process concerns
Read case analysis
Criminal law Rico v. United States

Rico v. United States

The Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not automatically extend supervised release when a defendant absconds; statutory limits and procedures control.

  • Abscondment
  • Tolling
  • Revocation of supervised release
  • 18 u.s.c. §3583
  • 18 u.s.c. §3624(e)
  • Supervised-release
Read case analysis
Immigration law Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

Urias-Orellana v. Bondi

The Court held that review of the BIA’s persecution determination is deferential: courts of appeals apply substantial-evidence review to the mixed question under §1252(b)(4)(B).

  • Asylum
  • Persecution standard
  • Substantial‑evidence review
  • 8 u.s.c. §1252(b)(4)(b)
  • Elias‑zacarias precedent
  • Persecution-standard
Read case analysis
Federal tort claims act Postal Service v. Konan

Postal Service v. Konan

The Supreme Court held that the FTCA postal exception bars claims arising from intentional nondelivery of mail, because “loss” and “miscarriage” include such conduct.

  • Postal exception §2680(b)
  • Miscarriage of mail
  • Loss of mail
  • Intentional nondelivery
  • Negligent transmission
  • Ftca
Read case analysis
Constitutional law Ellingburg v. United States

Ellingburg v. United States

The Supreme Court held that MVRA restitution is criminal punishment for Ex Post Facto purposes, reversing the Eighth Circuit and remanding.

  • Ex post facto clause
  • Mandatory victims restitution act (mvra)
  • Restitution as punishment
  • Retroactivity
  • Ex-post-facto-clause
  • Mandatory-victims-restitution-act
Read case analysis
Criminal law Barrett v. United States Revisions: 1/14/26

Barrett v. United States Revisions: 1/14/26

The Supreme Court held that a single act violating both 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) supports only one conviction absent clear congressional authorization.

  • Blockburger rule
  • 18 u.s.c. §924(c)
  • 18 u.s.c. §924(j)
  • Double jeopardy
  • Mandatory minimums
  • Legislative history
Read case analysis
Criminal law Barrett v. United States

Barrett v. United States

The Court held that a single act violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i) and §924(j) can support only one conviction absent clear congressional authorization.

  • Double jeopardy
  • 18 u.s.c. §924(c) and §924(j)
  • Blockburger rule
  • Sentencing
  • Mandatory minimums
  • Capital punishment
Read case analysis
Criminal law Bowe v. United States

Bowe v. United States

The Court held that §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar certiorari review of a federal prisoner’s successive-§2255 authorization request and that §2244(b)(1) does not apply to §2255 motions.

  • Aedpa
  • Successive motions
  • §2244(b)(1)
  • §2244(b)(3)(e)
  • §2255(h)
  • §924(c) crime of violence
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

United States decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.