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 criminal returned 381 results.

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

1000 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
1000 HUDSON V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)
[Syllabus]
1000 COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).
[Syllabus]
968
[Syllabus]
968 CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
933 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
933 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
933 SMITH V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
898 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
898 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
898 MEDELLIN V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
855
[Syllabus]
855 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In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence.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?
855 KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997).
[Syllabus]
855 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
855 MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL
[Syllabus]
The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
855 MILLER-EL V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
855
[Syllabus]
808 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?
808 SMITH V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
808 TURNER V. ROGERS
[Syllabus]
808 SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)
[Syllabus]
808 DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
808
[Syllabus]
808 EDMOND V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 651 (1997).
[Syllabus]
808 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.
808 MCKUNE V. LILE
[Syllabus]
The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
808 ROGERS V. TENNESSEE
[Syllabus]
The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
808 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
808 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.
808 TENNARD V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
757 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
757 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
757 M. L. B. V. S. L. J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996).
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757 PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
757 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
699
[Syllabus]
699 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
699 UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).
[Syllabus]
699 COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990)
[Syllabus]
699 BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
699
[Syllabus]
699 DEGEN V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 820 (1996).
[Syllabus]
699 GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ
[Syllabus]
699 DEMORE V. KIM
[Syllabus]
Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
699 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
699 BLACK V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
699
[Syllabus]
699
[Syllabus]
699 WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995).
[Syllabus]
624 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
624 RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
624 MICHIGAN V. BRYANT
[Syllabus]
624 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)."
624 UNITED STATES V. SANTOS
[Syllabus]
624 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Syllabus]
Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
624
[Syllabus]
624 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Syllabus]
624 EWING V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
624 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBANDEVELOPMENT V. RUCKER
[Syllabus]
Title 42 U. S. C. §1437d(l)(6)'s plain language unambiguously requires public housing lease terms that give local authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the tenant's household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of that activity.
624 PADILLA V. KENTUCKY
[Syllabus]
624 OREGON V. ICE
[Syllabus]
624 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?
624 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.
624
[Syllabus]
624 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
624 ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW
[Syllabus]
Whether a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigator stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
624 CARR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
624
[Syllabus]
624 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
624 UNITED STATES V. O'HAGAN, 117 S.CT. 2199, 138 L.ED.2D 724 (1997).
[Syllabus]
624 BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO
[Syllabus]
624 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
624 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?
624 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.
624
[Syllabus]
624 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
624 UNITED STATES V. COTTON
[Syllabus]
A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
624 UNITED STATES V. PATANE
[Syllabus]
Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
539
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. DENEDO
[Syllabus]
539 WALL V. KHOLI
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Syllabus]
1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
539 LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998)
[Syllabus]
539 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
539 ARIZONA V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
539 ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
539 PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998)
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539 PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
539 DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
539 HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY.
[Syllabus]
Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
539 UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
539 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN
[Syllabus]
539 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?
539 INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
539 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?
539 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
539 JIMENEZ V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
539 BRACY V. GRAMLEY, WARDEN, 520 U.S. 899 (1997).
[Syllabus]
539 INDIANA V. EDWARDS
[Syllabus]
539 LILLY V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
539 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
539 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
539 APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY
[Syllabus]
Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
539 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. STEVENS
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539 UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS
[Syllabus]
The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
539 SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN
[Syllabus]
1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
539 O'NEAL V. MCANINCH, 513 U.S. 432 (1995).
[Syllabus]
539 CAPERTON V. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
539 ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
539 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING
[Syllabus]
539 CARMELL V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
539
[Syllabus]
539 HALBERT V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
539 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE FOR THIRD JUDICIALDIST. V. OSBORNE
[Syllabus]
539 WALLACE V. KATO
[Syllabus]
539 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).
539 CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
539 ZADVYDAS V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution's demands, implicitly limits an alien's detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien's removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention; the application of that limitation is subject to federal court review.
539 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
539
[Syllabus]
539 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
425 LACHANCE V. ERICKSON, 522 U.S. 262 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425 BEGAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 561 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC. V. SEB S.A.
[Syllabus]
425 JAMES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996).
[Syllabus]
425 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
425 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."
425
[Syllabus]
425 ROTELLA V. WOOD
[Syllabus]
In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
425
[Syllabus]
425 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.
425
[Syllabus]
425 SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
425 NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
425 REGALADO CUELLAR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 SYKES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 KOWALSKI V. TESMER
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 GILES V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
425 CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996).
[Syllabus]
425 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
425 INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND
[Syllabus]
Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
425
[Syllabus]
425 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?
425 MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
425 RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 RYDER V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 177 (1995).
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 STRATE V. A-1 CONTRACTORS, 520 U.S. 438 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
425 SABRI V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
425 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
425 BRYAN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S 184 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425 EXXON SHIPPING CO. V. BAKER
[Syllabus]
425 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.
425 HUBBARD V. UNITED STATES, 514 U.S. 695 (1995).
[Syllabus]
425 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 INS V. ST. CYR
[Syllabus]
Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
425 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
425 NASA V. NELSON
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. SUN-DIAMOND GROWERS OF CAL.
[Syllabus]
425 DODD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425 YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 WYOMING V. HOUGHTON
[Syllabus]
425 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
425 SEC V. ZANDFORD
[Syllabus]
Assuming that the allegations in the SEC's complaint are true, respondent's alleged fraudulent conduct-selling his customer's securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer's knowledge or consent-was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security" within the meaning of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the SEC's Rule 10b-5.
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 GONZALES V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
425 VERMONT V. BRILLON
[Syllabus]
425 STOGNER V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? 2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the Statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
425 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
425 KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998)
[Syllabus]
425 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
425 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING
[Syllabus]
The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. §1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
425
[Syllabus]
425 RING V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
425
[Syllabus]
425 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425
[Syllabus]
425 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
425 ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
425 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]
425 INYO COUNTY V. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OFBISHOP COMMUNITY OF BISHOP COLONY
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
425 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.
425 KANSAS V. CRANE
[Syllabus]
Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U. S. 346, set forth no requirement that a dangerous sexual offender have a total or complete lack of control to civilly commit him, but the Constitution does not permit such commitment without any lack-of-control determination.
425 KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997).
[Syllabus]
425 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996).
[Syllabus]
425 LOGAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 GARNER  V.  JONES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
269 UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).
[Syllabus]
269 BROGAN V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 398 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 GALL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO
[Syllabus]
269 SHINSEKI V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
269 GONZALES V. RAICH
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 NEDER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. V. UNITED STATESEX REL. KIRK
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. HAYES
[Syllabus]
269 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
269 DOE V. REED
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 DAVIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER
[Syllabus]
Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
269 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
269 FLORIDA V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
Because the judgment below was not "[f]inal" within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §1257(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question on which certiorari was granted.
269 OHLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
269 BLOATE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997).
[Syllabus]
269 HADDLE V. GARRISON
[Syllabus]
269 LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
269 RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996).
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. HYDE, 520 U.S. 670 (1997).
[Syllabus]
269 GILBERT, PRESIDENT, EAST STROUDSBURG UNIVERSITY V. HOMAR, 520 U.S. 924 (1997)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 DESERT PALACE, INC. V. COSTA
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
269 MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. V. CARPENTER
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
269 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
269 HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE, INC. V. ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 BERGHUIS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
269 UTTECHT V. BROWN
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. RUIZ
[Syllabus]
The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
269 FLORES-FIGUEROA V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 LOPEZ V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
269 BOARD OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BRYAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA V. BROWN, 520 U.S. 397 (1997)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN
[Syllabus]
269 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
[Syllabus]
269 GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATIONDIST. V.UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. MONTALVO-MURILLO, 495 U.S. 711 (1990)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
269 YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.
269 OSULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 WEST COVINA V. PERKINS
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
269 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
269 MV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 BABBITT V. SWEET HOME CHAPT. COMMS. FOR ORE., 515 U.S. 687 (1995).
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG
[Syllabus]
269 BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
269 UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).
[Syllabus]
269 PORTUONDO V. AGARD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
269 STENBERG V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
269
[Syllabus]
269 SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
269 HERCULES INC. ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 417 (1996).
[Syllabus]
269 UNITED STATES V. ARVIZU
[Syllabus]
Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by a border patrol agent and the District Court Judge, the agent had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity when he was stopped while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona.
269 ASHCROFT V. AL-KIDD
[Syllabus]
269 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 FLORIDA V. J. L.
[Syllabus]
Whether an anonymous tip which states that a person is carrying a concealed firearm at a specific location, with a detailed description of the person and his attire, is sufficiently reliable to justify an investigatory detention and frisk where the police immediately verify the accuracy of the tip?"
269 ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995).
[Syllabus]
269 COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. V. LEATHERMANTOOL GROUP, INC.
[Syllabus]
Courts of Appeals should apply a de novo, not an abuse-of-discretion, standard when reviewing district court determinations of the constitutionality of punitive damages awards.
269
[Syllabus]
269 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
269 BATES V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 23 (1997)
[Syllabus]
269 DV. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 WATSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 DILLON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 CORLEY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997).
[Syllabus]
269 RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 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.
269 MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996).
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 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)'.'
269 CARON V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 308 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 GONZALEZ V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 BOYLE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS
[Syllabus]
Title 8 U. S. C. §1409, which provides different citizenship rules for children born abroad and out of wedlock to one United States citizen and one noncitizen depending on whether the citizen parent is the mother or the father, is consistent with the equal protection guarantee embedded in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
269 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).
[Syllabus]
269 JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
269 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
269 JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
[Syllabus]
269 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
269 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
269 DOLAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 LOCKE V. DAVEY
[Syllabus]
The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
269
[Syllabus]
269 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 FIORE V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
Whether a state can flaunt the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and evade federal habeas corpus relief for an incontestably innocent prisoner by claiming that an appellate decision constitutes ""new law,"" when in fact the state did not and could not prove a key element of the crime at trial? 3. Whether federal habeas relief should be extended to protect federal constitutional rights when a state refuses to retroactively apply a case which based its decision on the already existing clear language of the statute?
269 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
269 ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY
[Syllabus]
269 WILL V. HALLOCK
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 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?
269 FELTNER V. COLUMBIA PICTURES TELEVISION, INC., 523 U.S. 340 (1998)
[Syllabus]
269 KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)
[Syllabus]
269 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
269
[Syllabus]
269 DEAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
269 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
269 FLORIDA V. NIXON
[Syllabus]
269 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]