Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 948.0

524IND

Unit: $UBV [08-21-00 18:45:40] PGT: INDBV (Bound Volume)

1308

INDEX

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued.
VI. Presentment Clause.

Line Item Veto Act.—Act’s procedures for Presidential cancellation of
provisions of duly enacted laws violate Presentment Clause. Clinton v.
City of New York, p. 417.

VII. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination.

Domestic proceeding—Fear of foreign prosecution.—A witness in a do-
mestic proceeding may not claim Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination based on fear of prosecution by a foreign nation. United
States v. Balsys, p. 666.

VIII. Searches and Seizures.

Admissibility of evidence—Parole revocation hearing.—Exclusionary
rule, which generally prohibits introduction at a criminal trial of evidence
obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, does not
apply in parole revocation hearings. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and
Parole v. Scott, p. 357.

IX. Taking of Property.

1. Coal Industry Retiree Health Beneﬁt Act of 1992—Health care bene-
ﬁts funding.—Court of Appeals’ decision, that Act’s allocation of liability
for funding health care beneﬁts for coal industry retirees and their de-
pendents does not violate Takings Clause as applied to a company that left
coal industry in 1965, is reversed. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, p. 498.
2. Interest on Lawyers Trust Account program—Use of client funds.—
Interest earned on client funds deposited by an attorney in an “IOLTA”
account is client’s “private property” for Takings Clause purposes. Phil-
lips v. Washington Legal Foundation, p. 156.

CONTRACT ACTIONS. See Communications Act of 1934.

CORPORATIONS. See Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

CRIMINAL LAW. See also Attorney-Client Privilege; Constitutional

Law, I; II, 2; IV; VIII; Jurisdiction, 3.

1. Dealing in ﬁrearms without a license—“Willfully.”—Firearms Own-
ers’ Protection Act’s prohibition of “willfully” violating 18 U. S. C.
§ 922(a)(1)(A)—which forbids dealing in ﬁrearms without a federal
li-
cense—requires proof only that defendant knew that his conduct was un-
lawful, not that he also knew of licensing requirement. Bryan v. United
States, p. 184.

2. Federal ﬁrearms restrictions—Restoration of civil rights.—Where
State of conviction has restored a felon’s civil rights but restricts