skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query counsel returned 195 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

1000 SMITH V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
938 ROE V. FLORES-ORTEGA
[Syllabus]
Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
938 WIGGINS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
856 ALABAMA V. SHELTON
[Syllabus]
Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
856 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
842 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
842 FLORIDA V. NIXON
[Syllabus]
828 HALBERT V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
828 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
828 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
828 BELL V. CONE
[Syllabus]
Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
797 VERMONT V. BRILLON
[Syllabus]
797 KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE
[Syllabus]
780 MASSARO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
760 ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY
[Syllabus]
740 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
1. Where both the federal district court judge and state trial court judge who had originally sentenced Petitioner to death concluded that counsel's deficient performance was prejudicial under the test this Court articulated in Strickland v. Washington, did the Fourth Circuit err in denying relief by reformulating the Strickland test so that: a. ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be assessed under the ""windfall"" analysis articulated in Lockhart v. Fretwell even where trial counsel's error was no ""windfall"" ; and b. The petitioner must show that absent counsel's deficient performance in the penalty phase, all twelve jurors would have voted for life imprisonment, even where state law would have mandated a life sentence if only one juror had voted for life imprisonment; and 2. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot be ""contrary to "" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless it is in ""square conflict"" with a decision of this Court that is controlling as to law and fact""? 3. Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that, under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1), a state habeas court's decision to deny a federal constitutional claim cannot involve ""an unreasonable application of"" clearly established Federal law as determined by the Court unless the state court's decision is predicated on an interpretation or application of relevant precedent that ""reasonable jurists would all agree is unreasonable""?
740
[Syllabus]
721 SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN
[Syllabus]
698 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
698 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
698 TEXAS V. COBB
[Syllabus]
Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
698 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]
673 MICKENS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
673 MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
673 PREMO V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
647 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
647 SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
647
[Syllabus]
616
[Syllabus]
616
[Syllabus]
616
[Syllabus]
616 NEW YORK V. HILL
[Syllabus]
Does a defendant's express agreement to a trial date beyond the 180-day period required by the Interstate Agreement on Detainers constitute a waiver of his right to trial within such period?
616
[Syllabus]
583 INDIANA V. EDWARDS
[Syllabus]
583 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
583 WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR
[Syllabus]
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
583 EDWARDS V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal habeas court is barred from considering an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim as "" cause"" for the procedural default of another habeas claim when the ineffective-assistance claim is itself procedurally defaulted."
583 WOODFORD V. GARCEAU
[Syllabus]
For purposes of applying the rule in Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, a case does not become "pending" until an actual application for habeas relief is filed in federal court; respondent's application is subject to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because it was not filed until after AEDPA's effective date.
583
[Syllabus]
583 PERDUE V. KENNY A.
[Syllabus]
546 GISBRECHT V. BARNHART
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §406(b) does not displace contingent-fee agreements between Social Security benefits claimants and their counsel within the ceiling set forth in §406(b)(1)(A); instead it instructs courts to review for reasonableness fees yielded by those agreements.
546 SCARBOROUGH V. PRINCIPI
[Syllabus]
Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
546
[Syllabus]
546 ORTIZ V. FIBREBOARD CORP.
[Syllabus]
546 GLOVER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
546 LEE V. KEMNA
[Syllabus]
Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
546 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
546 BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS
[Syllabus]
546 SOLE V. WYNER
[Syllabus]
504 UNITED STATES V. VONN
[Syllabus]
A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
504 SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)
[Syllabus]
504 UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
504 KOWALSKI V. TESMER
[Syllabus]
504 MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST.
[Syllabus]
Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
504 LACKAWANNA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYV. COSS
[Syllabus]
Title 28 U. S. C. §2254 does not provide a remedy when a state prisoner challenges a current sentence on the ground that it was enhanced based on an allegedly unconstitutional prior conviction for which the petitioner is no longer in custody.
450 MARYLAND V. SHATZER
[Syllabus]
450 STRICKLER V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
450 DANIELS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Petitioner, having failed to pursue available remedies to challenge his prior convictions, may not now use a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion challenging his federal sentence to collaterally attack those convictions.
450 DRETKE V. HALEY
[Syllabus]
Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
450 FELLERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
450 KANSAS V. VENTRIS
[Syllabus]
450 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
450 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
388 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
388 UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
388 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC. V. WINDSOR, 117 S.CT. 2231, 138 L.ED.2D 689 (1997).
[Syllabus]
388 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
388
[Syllabus]
388 ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN
[Syllabus]
The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
307 WEEKS V. ANGELONE
[Syllabus]
1. Is there any ""compelling"" reason to review the Fourth Circuit's application of this Court's recent decision in Buchannan V. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757 (1998), to the facts of petitioner's case, which are substantially indistinguishable from those in Buchanan?"
307 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
307 UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990)
[Syllabus]
307 NLRB V. KENTUCKY RIVER COMMUNITY CARE, INC.
[Syllabus]
The burden of proving supervisory status in a representation hearing and unfair-labor-practice proceeding falls on the employer, the party asserting supervisory status; the NLRB's categorical exclusion of professional judgments from the term "independent judgment" is inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
307 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
307 UNITED STATES V. LARA
[Syllabus]
Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
307
[Syllabus]
307 WINKELMAN V. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DIST.
[Syllabus]
307 BALDWIN V. REESE
[Syllabus]
By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
307 KRUPSKI V. COSTA CROCIERE S.P.A.
[Syllabus]
307 BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO
[Syllabus]
307
[Syllabus]
307 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
307 CASTRO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
307
[Syllabus]
307 NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMIN. V. FAVISH
[Syllabus]
The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
307 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
307 TORY V. COCHRAN
[Syllabus]
307 PLILER V. FORD
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
307 PRICE V. VINCENT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury. 3. Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.
307 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
307 BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB
[Syllabus]
Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
307 UNITED STATES V. DENEDO
[Syllabus]
307 PENRY V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
The jury instructions at Penry's resentencing for capital murder did not comply with the Court's mandate in Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302; the admission into evidence of statements from a psychiatric report based on an uncounseled interview with Penry did not run afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
307 LAMIE V. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
[Syllabus]
Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
307
[Syllabus]
307 DECK V. MISSOURI
[Syllabus]
307 BECKER V. MONTGOMERY
[Syllabus]
When a party files a timely notice of appeal in federal district court, the failure to sign the notice does not require the court of appeals to dismiss the appeal.
307 LEVIN V. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC.
[Syllabus]
307 559 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
307 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
194 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
194 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
194 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
194 BROWN V. PAYTON
[Syllabus]
194 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
194 ERIE V. PAPS A. M.
[Syllabus]
Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
194 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
194 JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
194 MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP.
[Syllabus]
194 DRYE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes 'property ' or a 'right to property' to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
194 DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194 SMITH V. BAYER CORP.
[Syllabus]
194 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
194 LEXECON INC. V. MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD HYNES & LERACH 523 U.S. 26 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
194 LAWRENCE V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
194 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
194 PIERCE COUNTY V. GUILLEN
[Syllabus]
Both the original 23 U. S. C. §409 and a 1995 amendment, which together protect information "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in certain federal or state trials, fall within Congress' Commerce Clause power.
194 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY.
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. V. LINKLINECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
194 NELSON V. ADAMS USA, INC.
[Syllabus]
Whether a United States District Court, consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, can assess attorney's fees against a non-party pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285 without first securing service of process upon, and jurisdiction over, that nonparty. Whether a non-party shareholder/officer of a corporate party which lost a patent infringement lawsuit on the merits is subject to an award of attorney fees pursuant to a statute (35 U.S.C. 285) that authorizes an award of attorney fees to the ''prevailing party"" but makes no reference as to the party who must pay the award."
194
[Syllabus]
194 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
194 SELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
194 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
194 LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
194 RENICO V. LETT
[Syllabus]
194 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
194 COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996)
[Syllabus]
194 STATE FARM MUT. AUTOMOBILE INS. CO.V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
194 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 SWINT V. CHAMBERS COUNTY COMM'N, 514 U.S. 35 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF
[Syllabus]
194 THOMPSON V. KEOHANE, WARDEN, ET AL., 516 U.S. 99 (1996)..
[Syllabus]
194 CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
194 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
194 CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY
[Syllabus]
Respondent did not state an actionable claim when she alleged that she was denied access to courts by Government officials, who intentionally deceived her in concealing information that her husband had been tortured and killed by the Guatemalan army.
194 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CONN V. GABBERT
[Syllabus]
194 SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC.
[Syllabus]
Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
194
[Syllabus]
194 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
194 BRADSHAW V. STUMPF
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194 PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CORLEY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CARTER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
194 VIRGINIA V. MOORE
[Syllabus]
194 FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998)
[Syllabus]
194 UNITED STATES V. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
[Syllabus]
194 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
194 KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
194 TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO. V. BAILEY
[Syllabus]
194 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
194 WAGNON V. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
[Syllabus]
194 STONERIDGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC V.SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.
[Syllabus]
194 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
194 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
194 LAWYER V. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 117 S.CT. 2186, 138 L.ED.2D 669 (1997).
[Syllabus]
194 FLORIDA V. POWELL
[Syllabus]
194 COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).
[Syllabus]
194 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
194 EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
[Syllabus]
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
194 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
194
[Syllabus]
194 CUNNINGHAM V. HAMILTON COUNTY
[Syllabus]
194 RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO.
[Syllabus]
194 RASUL V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?