Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank | |
---|---|
Argued 1 April, 2015 Decided 4 May, 2015 | |
Full case name | Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank |
Docket no. | 14-116 |
Citations | 575 U.S. 496 ( more ) 135 S. Ct. 1686; 191 L. Ed. 2d 621 |
Case history | |
Prior | In re Bullard, 475 B.R. 304 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2012); affirmed, 494 B.R. 92 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2013); appeal dismissed, 752 F.3d 483 (1st Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 781 (2014). |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by unanimous |
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an order from a bankruptcy court denying a debtor's confirmation of a proposed repayment cannot be immediately appealed, as it is not a final order. [1] The decision, in favor of Blue Hills Bank, was unanimous. [2]
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that by a 5–4 decision invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty. It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag burning.
Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a school district's ability to hold classes on Bible study after school.
Eli Lilly and Company v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case related to patent infringement in the medical device industry. It held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) of United States patent law exempted premarketing activity conducted to gain approval of a device under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from a finding of infringement.
College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a defendant's immediate appeal of an unfavorable qualified immunity ruling on a motion to dismiss does not deprive the court of appeals of jurisdiction over a second appeal, also based on qualified immunity, immediately following denial of summary judgment.
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court.
Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning a use tax on paper and ink in excess of $100,000 consumed in any calendar year. The Minneapolis Star Tribune initially paid the tax and sued for a refund.
Keller v. State Bar of California, 496 U.S. 1 (1990), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that attorneys who are required to be members of a state bar association have a First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing the organization’s political or ideological activities.
United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the United States Government had breached its contractual obligations. The court in Winstar rejected the Government's "unmistakability defense"—that surrenders of sovereign authority, such as the promise to refrain from regulatory changes, must appear in unmistakable terms in a contract in order to be enforceable.
Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the First Amendment did not prohibit states from barring judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their election campaigns since that specific restriction on candidate's speech was deemed to be narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of keeping the judiciary impartial. It is a rare instance of a government regulation passing strict scrutiny.
Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 575 U.S. 21 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "the Eleventh Circuit properly concluded that CSX's competitors are an appropriate comparison class for the Railroad Revitalization and Regulation Reform Act of 1976's subsection (b)(4) claim." The Act prohibits states from imposing "another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier" and the Court found that the Eleventh Circuit "erred in refusing to consider whether Alabama could justify its decision to exempt motor carriers from its sales and use taxes through its decision to subject motor carriers to a fuel excise tax."
Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, 575 U.S. 43 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held "for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity."
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, 575 U.S. 92 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the D.C. Circuit's Paralyzed Veterans doctrine is contrary to a clear reading of the Administrative Procedure Act and "improperly imposes on agencies an obligation beyond the Act's maximum procedural requirements."
Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary, 471 U.S. 83 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an evenly split Court upheld per curiam a lower court's decision that the display of a privately sponsored nativity scene on public property does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether Virginia's legislature – the Virginia General Assembly – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by considering racial demographics when drawing the boundaries of twelve of the state's legislative districts.
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 575 U.S. 650 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court involving KBR and a former KRB contractor, Benjamin Carter. In a unanimous opinion written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act only applies to criminal offenses. The Court also held that qui tam lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act are no longer considered "pending" after they have been dismissed.
'Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. ___ (2020)' was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that "when the bankruptcy court unreservedly grants or denies relief", in this case on a motion for relief from an automatic stay, that decision presents a final order that may be appealed. In a 12-page opinion the Court relied upon its own precedent in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank to affirm the court below.