Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Seventy-two Thousand, Nine Hundred & Forty Dollars in United States Currency v. United States

493 U.S. 810

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-10-02
Topic
general

noting the trial court’s error in “treating the reasonable accommodation question as separate from the otherwise qualified analysis” | noting the trial court's error in "treating the reasonable accommodation question as separate from the otherwise qualified analysis" | upholding conviction for mail fraud against McNally challenge where defendant was charged with defrauding state government of its right to sue for sales tax he failed to collect | upholding conviction for mail fraud against McNally challenge where defendant was charged with defrauding state government of its right to sue for sales tax he failed to collect | “Congressional aim guiding these forfeitures is to recover all of the racketeer’s ill-gotten gains but not to seize legitimately acquired property” | optometry school not required to waive or vary exam requirements to accommodate student with a vision impairment | “Thus, in statutory fee-shifting cases, only parties (usually plaintiffs) may seek reimbursement whereas in common fund cases attorneys may seek compensation.” | "The point at which plaintiffs settle with defendants ... is simply not relevant to determining the risks incurred by their counsel in agreeing to represent them.” | "Congressional aim guiding these forfeitures is to recover all of the racketeer's ill-gotten gains but not to seize legitimately acquired property" | “An educational institution is not required to accommodate a handicapped individual by eliminating a course requirement which is reasonably necessary to proper use of the degree conferred at the end of a course of study.” | "An educational institution is not required to accommodate a handicapped individual by eliminating a course requirement which is reasonably necessary to proper use of the degree conferred at the end of a course of study." | Arbitrator’s interpretation that untimeliness of a grievance filing was de minimis is not unreasonable | decided under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 7

Citator

Cited by
63 opinions

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.