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"

Did you mean insanity or mental and health?

Your query insanity or (mental and health) returned 24 results.

1000 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Opinion]
737 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
737 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
712 ROE V. WADE
[Opinion]
707 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT
[Opinion]
648 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES
[Opinion]
631 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH
[Opinion]
608 PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN
[Opinion]
606 DOE V. BOLTON
[Opinion]
606 AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC.
[Dissent]
603 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY
[Opinion]
576 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
554 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Opinion]
547 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Opinion]
517 BEAL V. DOE
[Opinion]
517 ********
[Dissent]
504 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Opinion]
495 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Dissent]
492 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Syllabus]
482 LOCHNER V. NEW YORK
[Dissent]
477 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
477 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
477 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
477 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Opinion]
477 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
467 DOE V. BOLTON
[Concurrence]
465 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
460 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
460 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
455 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
455 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
455 HARRIS V. MCRAE
[Dissent]
440 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
440 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
440 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Dissent]
425 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Opinion]
425 SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES
[Dissent]
418 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA
[Opinion]
400 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
400 KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997).
[Syllabus]
400 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
391 NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO.
[Opinion]
381 BLUM V. YARETSKY
[Opinion]
373 PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN
[Dissent]
368
[Syllabus]
368 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Opinion]
368 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Dissent]
356 HUTCHINSON V. PROXMIRE
[Opinion]
341 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
341 EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA
[Dissent]
341 YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO
[Opinion]
331 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
324 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
324 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT
[Syllabus]
324 DOE V. BOLTON
[Dissent]
324 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Concurrence]
306 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
306 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Opinion]
306 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
306 ********
[Opinion]
306 CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
304 A BOOK NAMED 'JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE' V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Dissent]
304 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
282 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
282 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
282 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
282 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS
[Opinion]
282 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Dissent]
282 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Opinion]
282 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
282 ROMER V. EVANS
[Opinion]
282 HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG
[Opinion]
282 GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
[Dissent]
269 LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
[Opinion]
254 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
254 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Opinion]
254 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
254 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
254 IN RE GAULT
[Opinion]
254 GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER
[Opinion]
254 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Opinion]
254 YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO
[Concurrence]
254 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Dissent]
254 MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA
[Opinion]
220 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
220 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
220 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997).
[Syllabus]
220 WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
[Concurrence]
220 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Dissent]
220 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER
[Concurrence]
220 BUCK V. BELL
[Opinion]
220 ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA
[Concurrence]
220 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
220 JOHNSON V. ROBISON
[Opinion]
220 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE
[Opinion]
220 SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON
[Concurrence]
220 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Concurrence]
220 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Syllabus]
220 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
220 FREEMAN V. PITTS
[Opinion]
220 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
170
[Syllabus]
170 CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS
[Opinion]
170 MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE
[Syllabus]
170 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
170 DOE V. MCMILLAN
[Opinion]
170 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Syllabus]
170 GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK
[Opinion]
170 DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
170 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
170 CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL
[Concurrence]
170 RANKIN V. MCPHERSON
[Opinion]
170 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Dissent]
170 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
170 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
170 DELAWARE V. PROUSE
[Opinion]
170 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
170 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
170 TROXEL V. GRANVILLE
[Dissent]
170 WISCONSIN V. YODER
[Syllabus]
170 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Opinion]
170 BOWEN V. ROY
[Concurrence]
170 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
1000 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
719 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
644
[Syllabus]
604
[Syllabus]
601 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
601 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
573 OLMSTEAD V. L. C.
[Syllabus]
570 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
504 KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997).
[Syllabus]
464
[Syllabus]
429 DIXON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
429 CONE V. BELL
[Syllabus]
429 KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE
[Syllabus]
408 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
339
[Syllabus]
320 VIRGINIA OFFICE FOR PROTECTION AND ADVOCACYV. STEWART
[Syllabus]
277 JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996)
[Syllabus]
277 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
277 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214
[Syllabus]
214 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
214 LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997).
[Syllabus]
214 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).