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 eighth and amendment returned 77 results.

1000
[Syllabus]
979 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)?
963
[Syllabus]
963 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
963 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
899 COOK V. GRALIKE
[Syllabus]
1. Do the people violate Article V of the Constitution when they participate in the evolution of their government by communicating their opinion to federal legislators or by communicating on the ballot to voters about the behavior of federal candidates? 2. Do the people violate the Qualifications Clauses and the First Amendment when they comment on the ballot regarding an elected representative's actions and voting record or when they comment on the ballot about a non-incumbent congressional candidate's silence concerning a prospective constitutional amendment? 3. Does the speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution prohibit the people from commenting on the ballot about a federal legislator's actions and voting record in regard to a prospective constitutional amendment?"
879 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.
858
[Syllabus]
858 REGIONS HOSPITAL V. SHALALA, 522 U.S. 448 (1998)
[Syllabus]
858
[Syllabus]
858 ROPER V. SIMMONS
[Syllabus]
834
[Syllabus]
806 JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN.
[Syllabus]
782 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
778 WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990)
[Syllabus]
778 NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC
[Syllabus]
Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
762 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE
[Syllabus]
The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
758 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.
749 HOPE V. PELZER
[Syllabus]
Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
721
[Syllabus]
717 ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997)
[Syllabus]
713
[Syllabus]
709 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC
[Syllabus]
The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
693 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
669 TIMMONS V. TWIN CITIES AREA NEW PARTY, 520 U.S. 351 (1997)
[Syllabus]
661 UNITED STATES V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
653 PEPPER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
645 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
645 LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996).
[Syllabus]
620 HOHN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)
[Syllabus]
600
[Syllabus]
600 UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
[Syllabus]
580 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.
556 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.
556
[Syllabus]
556 559 U.S. ____ (2010)
[Syllabus]
556 ASTRUE V. RATLIFF
[Syllabus]
556 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
556 FIDELITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. V. FINK, 522 U.S. 221 (1998)
[Syllabus]
556 GRAHAM V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
556 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
528 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
495
[Syllabus]
495
[Syllabus]
495
[Syllabus]
439 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
439 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998)
[Syllabus]
439 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
439
[Syllabus]
439 NELSON V. CAMPBELL
[Syllabus]
Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
439 LOCKYER V. ANDRADE
[Syllabus]
The Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal's decision affirming Andrade's sentence for a "third strike" conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's clearly established law within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
439 TENNARD V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
439 OVERTON V. BAZZETTA
[Syllabus]
In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
415
[Syllabus]
415
[Syllabus]
415 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.
358
[Syllabus]
358 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
358 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]
278 ROELL V. WITHROW
[Syllabus]
When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
278 HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995).
[Syllabus]
278 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]
278 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
278 HUI V. CASTANEDA
[Syllabus]
278 BOOTH V. CHURNER
[Syllabus]
Under 42 U. S. C. §1997e(a), an inmate seeking only money damages must complete any prison administrative process capable of addressing the inmate's complaint and providing some form of relief, even if the process does not make specific provision for monetary relief.
278 UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).
[Syllabus]
278 PORTER V. NUSSLE
[Syllabus]
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
278 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
278 AYERS V. BELMONTES
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]
278 MILLER V. FRENCH
[Syllabus]
The question presented is whether Section 3626(e) violates separation-of-powers principles by legislatively specifying a rule of decision or legislatively annulling a judgment."
278
[Syllabus]
278 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
278 MILLER-EL V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
278
[Syllabus]