The Supreme Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a "party in interest" under 11 U.S.C. §1109(b) that may raise and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Court rejected the "insurance neutrality" doctrine used by lower courts and ruled that insurers like Truck Insurance Exchange have a right to object to reorganization plans that may affect their interests.

This case and more at https://9robes.ai

Music and sound effects provided by:

⁠RescopicSound⁠⁠

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM⁠

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that a corporation's contractual obligation to redeem shares is not necessarily a liability that reduces the corporation's value for purposes of the federal estate tax. The Court concluded that Crown's promise to redeem Michael Connelly's shares at fair market value did not reduce the value of those shares when calculating estate taxes.

This case and more at https://9robes.ai

Music and sound effects provided by:

⁠RescopicSound⁠⁠

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM⁠

The Supreme Court addressed a matter involving the complexities of law and the rights of Native American tribes. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, often referred to as ISDA is important because it allows tribes to take control of their health services and programs.

This case and more at https://9robes.ai

Music and sound effects provided by:

⁠RescopicSound⁠⁠

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM⁠

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit's decision, ruling that the appeals court failed to properly analyze whether New York's interest-on-escrow law is preempted as applied to national banks in a manner consistent with the Dodd-Frank Act and the Barnett Bank precedent. The Court clarified that under Dodd-Frank, state laws are preempted "only if" they "prevent or significantly interfere with" national bank powers, as determined by the standard in Barnett Bank.

This case and more at https://9robes.ai

Music and sound effects provided by:

⁠RescopicSound⁠⁠

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM⁠

The Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit decision that had granted habeas relief to a death row inmate. The Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit erred in its application of the Strickland v. Washington standard for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The majority found that the Ninth Circuit failed to properly weigh the strong aggravating factors in the case against the mitigating evidence.

This case and more at https://9robes.ai

Music and sound effects provided by:
RescopicSound
"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that when parties have two contracts - one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration and another sending disputes to courts - a court must decide which contract governs before arbitration can be compelled.

Find this and more at https://9robes.ai

The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded in part a lower court ruling that found South Carolina's Congressional District 1 to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority held that the district court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 was clearly erroneous, and that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of showing the legislature subordinated traditional redistricting principles to racial considerations. The Court also found error in the district court's analysis of the plaintiffs' vote dilution claim and remanded that issue.

Read the details of this case at https://9robes.ai

The Court held that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit.

Read this summary at https://9robes.ai

The Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing.

This case, and more, at https://9robes.ai

The Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. The Act's statute of limitations establishes a three-year period for filing suit, which begins when a claim accrues, but does not impose a separate three-year limit on recovering damages.

Find this case and more at https://9robes.ai