Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query parole returned 40 results.

	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE V. SCOTT, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	[Syllabus]
	YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997). [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. DOTSON [Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SPENCER V. KEMNA, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
	[Syllabus]
	SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the district court properly imposed a ''tail "" of supervised release following incarceration after revoking Petitioner' s initial term of supervised release, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution."
	O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	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.
	RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996). [Syllabus]
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. PRINGLE [Syllabus] Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	PREMO V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	HARRINGTON V. RICHTER [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. ALABAMA, 513 U.S. 504 (1995). [Syllabus]
	WALKER V. MARTIN [Syllabus]
	SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). [Syllabus]
	HUDSON V. MICHIGAN [Syllabus]
	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.
	PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS V. YESKEY, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS [Syllabus]
	BROWN V. PLATA [Syllabus]