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 prison or prisoner or inmate returned 291 results.

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

1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
917 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Opinion]
904 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Dissent]
834 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Opinion]
794 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Opinion]
712 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Opinion]
699
[Syllabus]
694 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Opinion]
673 WILKINSON V. AUSTIN
[Syllabus]
666 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
657 WILSON V. SEITER
[Opinion]
640 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.
553 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Dissent]
530 IN RE NEAGLE
[Opinion]
528 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
520 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
520 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concurrence]
520 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Dissent]
504 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Opinion]
502 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Dissent]
481 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
481 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Concurrence]
481 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
469 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
469 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.
469 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Syllabus]
458 SHAW V. MURPHY
[Syllabus]
Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
446 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
446 POWELL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
432 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?
431 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Syllabus]
417 JONES V. BOCK
[Syllabus]
417 TWINING V. STATE
[Opinion]
417 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Opinion]
401 BARBER V. THOMAS
[Syllabus]
401 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
401 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
401 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Dissent]
399 LEWIS V. CASEY, 516 U.S. 804 (1996)
[Syllabus]
382 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Syllabus]
382 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
382 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Syllabus]
380 LOPEZ V. DAVIS
[Syllabus]
Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
380 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
380 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
361
[Syllabus]
361 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.
361 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
361 PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
361 WILKINSON V. DOTSON
[Syllabus]
361 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
361 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
361 WILSON V. SEITER
[Syllabus]
361 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
361 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
361 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
361 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
361 SCHICK V. REED
[Dissent]
338
[Syllabus]
338 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Opinion]
338 IN RE NEAGLE
[Dissent]
312
[Syllabus]
312 WOODFORD V. NGO
[Syllabus]
312 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
312 BUCK V. BELL
[Opinion]
312 BETTS V. BRADY
[Dissent]
310 EDWARDS V. BALISOK, 520 U.S. 641 (1997).
[Syllabus]
310 SAMSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
310 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.
310 CUTTER V. WILKINSON
[Syllabus]
310 JUREK V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
279 CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995).
[Syllabus]
279 EVANS V. CHAVIS
[Syllabus]
279 SLACK V. MCDANIEL
[Syllabus]
If a person's petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 is dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and he subsequently exhaust his state remedies and refiles the 2254 petition, are claims included within that petition that were not included within his initial 2254 filing ""second or successive"" habeas applications?
279 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?
279
[Syllabus]
279
[Syllabus]
279 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."
279 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.
279 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
279 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?
279 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.
279 KENTUCKY V. DENNISON
[Opinion]
279 BETTS V. BRADY
[Opinion]
279 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Opinion]
279 PATTON V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
279 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
279 BENTON V. MARYLAND
[Concurrence]
240 CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. V. MALESKO
[Syllabus]
The limited holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, may not be extended to confer a right of action for damages against private entities acting under color of federal law.
240 MUNAF V.GEREN
[Syllabus]
240 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?
240 CAREY V. SAFFOLD
[Syllabus]
As used in 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(2), which tolls the limitations period for filing federal habeas petitions while a petition for state collateral relief is "pending," the term "pending" covers the time between a lower state court's decision and the filing of a notice of appeal to a higher state court; that rule applies to California's collateral review system; and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the question whether respondent's state petition was timely filed.
240 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
240 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
240 LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997)
[Syllabus]
240 STEWART V. MARTINEZ-VILLAREAL, 523 U.S. 637 (1998)
[Syllabus]
240
[Syllabus]
240 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.
240 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.
240 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
240 SANDIN V. CONNER, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
[Syllabus]
240 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Opinion]
240 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Syllabus]
240 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Syllabus]
240 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
240 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Syllabus]
240 ********
[Opinion]
240 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
240 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Concurrence]
240 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concurrence]
240 IN RE NEAGLE
[Syllabus]
240 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Dissent]
240 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
240 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
190 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""?
190 HAYWOOD V. DROWN
[Syllabus]
190 GARLOTTE V. FORDICE, 515 U.S. 39 (1995).
[Syllabus]
190 UNITED STATES V. COMSTOCK
[Syllabus]
190 OSULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
190 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?
190 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?
190 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?
190
[Syllabus]
190 MAGWOOD V. PATTERSON
[Syllabus]
190 WALKER V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
190 YOUNG V. HARPER, 520 U.S. 143 (1997).
[Syllabus]
190 BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH
[Syllabus]
190 MARTIN V. HADIX
[Syllabus]
190 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD
[Syllabus]
190 LAWRENCE V. FLORIDA
[Syllabus]
190 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."
190 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.
190 LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
[Dissent]
190 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
190 TERRY V. OHIO
[Opinion]
190 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
190 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Opinion]
190 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Opinion]
190 CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
190 SCHICK V. REED
[Opinion]
190 HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
190 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
190 KILBOURN V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
190 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
190 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
190 YICK WO V. HOPKINS
[Syllabus]
190 TWINING V. STATE
[Dissent]
190 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Syllabus]
120
[Syllabus]
120 UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998)
[Syllabus]
120
[Syllabus]
120 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
120 GONZALEZ V. CROSBY
[Syllabus]
120 SOSSAMON V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
120 CLAY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
For the purpose of starting the clock on the 1-year limitation period for federal prisoners to file habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2255, a judgment of conviction becomes final when the time expires for filing a certiorari petition contesting the appellate court's affirmation of the conviction.
120 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."
120 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?
120 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).
120 UNITED STATES V. JOHNSON
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant's term of supervised release commences on the date of his actual release from prison or on the earlier date on which he should have been released in accordance with a retroactively applied change in the law.
120 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?
120 SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997)
[Syllabus]
120 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.
120
[Syllabus]
120 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
120 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
120 CALDERON V. ASHMUS, 523 U.S. 740 (1998)
[Syllabus]
120
[Syllabus]
120 JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
120 ORTIZ V. JORDAN
[Syllabus]
120 FELKER V. TURPIN, WARDEN, 518 U.S. 1051 (1996).
[Syllabus]
120 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
120
[Syllabus]
120 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
120 HARBISON V. BELL
[Syllabus]
120 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
120 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?
120 RICHARDSON V. MCKNIGHT, 117 S.CT. 2100, 138 L.ED.2D 540 (1997).
[Syllabus]
120 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.
120
[Syllabus]
120 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Syllabus]
120 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
120 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
120 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
120 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
120 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
120 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
120 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
120 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Opinion]
120 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
120 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Syllabus]
120 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
120 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
120 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
120 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Syllabus]
120 PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD
[Opinion]
120 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
120 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Opinion]
120 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
120 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Dissent]
120 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
120 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
120 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
120 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Syllabus]
120 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Dissent]
120 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
120 RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS
[Dissent]
120 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Syllabus]
120 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
120 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
120 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Syllabus]
120 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
120 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
120 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
120 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
120 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Concurrence]
120 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
120 MARTIN V. WILKS
[Dissent]
120 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Opinion]
120 MAPP V. OHIO
[Dissent]
120 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Opinion]
120 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
120 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
120 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Opinion]
120 WILSON V. SEITER
[Concurrence]
120 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Opinion]
120 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
120 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Dissent]
120 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Opinion]
120 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
120 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Opinion]
120 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
[Dissent]
120 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
120 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
120 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 CRIST V. BRETZ
[Dissent]
120 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Dissent]
120 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Opinion]
120 BETTS V. BRADY
[Syllabus]
120 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Opinion]
120 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
120 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
120 ********
[Dissent]
120 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
120 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
120 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
120 ASHE V. SWENSON
[Concurrence]
120 IN RE DEBS
[Opinion]
120 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
120 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Opinion]
120 EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
120 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
120 MAPP V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
120 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
120 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Opinion]
120 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Syllabus]
120 BAKER V. CARR
[Opinion]
120 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
970 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Opinion]
913 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Dissent]
832 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Opinion]
815 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Opinion]
764 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Opinion]
739 WILSON V. SEITER
[Opinion]
707 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Opinion]
641 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Dissent]
617 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Dissent]
617 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
601 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Dissent]
597 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
537 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Concurrence]
507 HUDSON V. PALMER
[Syllabus]
499 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
493 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
493 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Syllabus]
493 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
487 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
487 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Dissent]
484 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Concurrence]
450 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Opinion]
435 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Dissent]
419 WHITLEY V. ALBERS
[Syllabus]
397 IN RE NEAGLE
[Opinion]
390 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
390 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
390 WILSON V. SEITER
[Syllabus]
390 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
381 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Opinion]
381 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Opinion]
361 WILSON V. SEITER
[Concurrence]
346 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Concurrence]
340 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
337 HELLING V. MCKINNEY
[Syllabus]
337 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
337 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Concurrence]
336 JUREK V. TEXAS
[Opinion]
327 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Opinion]
327 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Opinion]
318 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
317 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Opinion]
306 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
306 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Syllabus]
306 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Opinion]
305 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
293 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
293 EX PARTE MILLIGAN
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
293 ESTELLE V. GAMBLE
[Syllabus]
293 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
293 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
286 RENO V. ACLU
[Opinion]
272 POWELL V. ALABAMA
[Opinion]
264 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Opinion]
263 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Syllabus]
263 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
263 INGRAHAM V. WRIGHT
[Opinion]
254 TWINING V. STATE
[Opinion]
244 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Dissent]
243 KENTUCKY V. DENNISON
[Opinion]
243 BETTS V. BRADY
[Opinion]
243 CORNELIUS V. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUC. FUND
[Dissent]
233 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concurrence]
233 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Syllabus]
232 KILBOURN V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
220 HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN
[Concurrence]
220 MAXWELL V. DOW
[Opinion]
220 DAWSON V. DELAWARE
[Syllabus]
220 SCHICK V. REED
[Dissent]
220 WATKINS V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
206 DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
206 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Concurrence]
206 IN RE NEAGLE
[Dissent]
206 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Opinion]
190 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Opinion]
190 BUCK V. BELL
[Opinion]
190 MILLER V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
190 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
190 WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
190 UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN
[Dissent]
190 BETTS V. BRADY
[Dissent]
189 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Opinion]
189 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
189 MARTIN V. WILKS
[Dissent]
189 ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE
[Syllabus]
189 NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
189 HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
170 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Dissent]
170 PATTON V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
170 BENTON V. MARYLAND
[Concurrence]
170 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Dissent]
170 DOTHARD V. RAWLINSON
[Concurrence]
170 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Concurrence]
146 MCCLESKEY V. KEMP
[Opinion]
146 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
146 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Opinion]
146 BUTZ V. ECONOMOU
[Opinion]
146 IN RE NEAGLE
[Syllabus]
146 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Dissent]
146 FORD V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concurrence]
146 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Dissent]
146 SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA V. SCHEMPP
[Concurrence]
146 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Opinion]
146 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
146 DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Dissent]
146 THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA
[Opinion]
146 HARMELIN V. MICHIGAN
[Syllabus]
146 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[Opinion]
146 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Dissent]
146 MASSACHUSETTS V. OAKES
[Opinion]
146 EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA
[Concurrence]
146 ********
[Opinion]
146 BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
116 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
116 BUMPER V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Opinion]
116 ENMUND V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
116 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Dissent]
116 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Concurrence]
116 MYERS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
116 GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
[Opinion]
116 LUJAN V. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
[Dissent]
116 DUNCAN V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
116 PLESSY V. FERGUSON
[Opinion]
116 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
116 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
116 ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN
[Opinion]
116 BENTON V. MARYLAND
[Opinion]
116 TERRY V. OHIO
[Opinion]
116 SKINNER V. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSOCIATION
[Opinion]
116 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Opinion]
116 COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES V. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BD. NO. 12
[Dissent]
116 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
116 CHAMBERS V. FLORIDA
[Opinion]
116 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Dissent]
116 SCHICK V. REED
[Opinion]
116 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN
[Opinion]
116 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
116 SCALES V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
116 POWELL V. TEXAS
[Dissent]
116 BATSON V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
116 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
116 YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO
[Opinion]
116 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
[Opinion]
116 BURCH V. LOUISIANA
[Opinion]
116 GOMEZ V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
116 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT V. RODRIGUEZ
[Opinion]
116 YICK WO V. HOPKINS
[Syllabus]
116 KOREMATSU V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
116 TWINING V. STATE
[Dissent]
116 ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION
[Opinion]
116 WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
116 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Opinion]
116 CITY OF RICHMOND V. J. A. CROSON CO.
[Concurrence]
116 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Opinion]
73 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Dissent]
73 WOODSON V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Dissent]
73 GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
[Concurrence]
73 HOLDEN V. HARDY
[Opinion]
73 UNITED STATES V. WATSON
[Dissent]
73 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Dissent]
73 PUERTO RICO V. BRANSTAD
[Opinion]
73 ATKINS V. VIRGINIA
[Dissent]
73 EX PARTE SIEBOLD
[Syllabus]
73 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
73 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Dissent]
73 RHODE ISLAND V. INNIS
[Dissent]
73 MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Dissent]
73 COKER V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
73 LEE V. WEISMAN
[Concurrence]
73 PALKO V. CONNECTICUT
[Opinion]
73 EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH
[Opinion]
73 UNITED STATES V. ROSS
[Opinion]
73 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
73 HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
73 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
73 YOUNGER V. HARRIS
[Opinion]
73 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
[Syllabus]
73 MONROE V. PAPE
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Dissent]
73 UNITED STATES V. QUARLES
[Opinion]
73 STANFORD V. KENTUCKY
[Opinion]
73 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
73 GEORGIA V. MCCOLLUM
[Opinion]
73 PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON
[Dissent]
73 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Opinion]
73 UNITED STATES V. LEON
[Opinion]
73 WITHERSPOON V. ILLINOIS
[]
73 BOWERS V. HARDWICK
[Concurrence]
73 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Dissent]
73 CRIST V. BRETZ
[Dissent]
73 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Opinion]
73 BETTS V. BRADY
[Syllabus]
73 VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY V. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC.
[Dissent]
73 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Opinion]
73 GOSS V. LOPEZ
[Opinion]
73 ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA
[Opinion]
73 SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE
[Opinion]
73 POWERS V. OHIO
[Syllabus]
73 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 GREGG V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
73 STREET V. NEW YORK
[Opinion]
73 DAVIS V. ALASKA
[Opinion]
73 FIRST ENGLISH EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF GLENDALE V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
[Dissent]
73 MINCEY V. ARIZONA
[Concurrence]
73 WORCESTER V. GEORGIA
[Opinion]
73 MARYLAND V. CRAIG
[Opinion]
73 R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL
[Opinion]
73 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Syllabus]
73 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Syllabus]
73 CABELL V. CHAVEZ-SALIDO
[Dissent]
73 POWELL V. MCCORMACK
[]
73 SANTOSKY V. KRAMER
[Dissent]
73 A BOOK NAMED 'JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE' V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Opinion]
73 NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES
[Concurrence]
73 CHEROKEE NATION V. GEORGIA
[Syllabus]
73 MAPP V. OHIO
[Dissent]
73 JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO.
[Opinion]
73 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Dissent]
73 PAUL V. DAVIS
[Opinion]
73 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 UNITED STATES V. MORRISON
[Opinion]
73 TEXAS V. JOHNSON
[Dissent]
73 CASTANEDA V. PARTIDA
[Opinion]
73 ABRAMS V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
73 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Opinion]
73 PULLEY V. HARRIS
[Syllabus]
73 SHAPIRO V. THOMPSON
[Opinion]
73 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Opinion]
73 CHICAGO V. MORALES
[Dissent]
73 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Concurrence]
73 ENGEL V. VITALE
[Dissent]
73 EX PARTE QUIRIN
[Syllabus]
73 LOUISIANA EX REL. FRANCIS V. RESWEBER
[Syllabus]
73 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG
[Dissent]
73 OHIO V. ROBERTS
[Opinion]
73 ********
[Dissent]
73 BOARD OF EDUC. V. PICO
[Dissent]
73 OSBORNE V. OHIO
[Opinion]
73 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 EX PARTE GROSSMAN
[Syllabus]
73 SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]
73 FURMAN V. GEORGIA
[Concurrence]
73 LOCKETT V. OHIO
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
[Opinion]
73 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT
[Opinion]
73 BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS
[Opinion]
73 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Concurrence]
73 MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND
[Concurrence]
73 JACKSON V. METROPOLITAN EDISON CO.
[Dissent]
73 PRINTZ V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
73 NEW JERSEY V. T.L.O.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 PARHAM V. J.R.
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 MUNN V. ILLINOIS
[Dissent]
73 WHALEN V. ROE
[Opinion]
73 ********
[Dissent]
73 BENTON V. MARYLAND
[Syllabus]
73 BREWER V. WILLIAMS
[Concurrence]
73 SCHALL V. MARTIN
[Dissent]
73 BUCKLEY V. VALEO
[Opinion]
73 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Concurrence]
73 PENRY V. LYNAUGH
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
73 JOHNSON V. ZERBST
[Opinion]
73 NEW YORK V. FERBER
[Opinion]
73 CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. V. CITY OF HIALEAH
[Concurrence]
73 NGUYEN V. INS
[Opinion]
73 SOUTH CAROLINA V. GATHERS
[Dissent]
73 ASHE V. SWENSON
[Concurrence]
73 IN RE DEBS
[Opinion]
73 UNITED STATES V. BROWN
[Opinion]
73 RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS
[Concurrence]
73 ABLEMAN V. BOOTH
[Syllabus]
73 MALLOY V. HOGAN
[Dissent]
73 WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC. V. ANTONIO
[Dissent]
73 MAPP V. OHIO
[Concurrence]
73 GREER V. SPOCK
[Dissent]
73 RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA
[Concurrence]
73 GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE
[Opinion]
73 KENT V. UNITED STATES
[Opinion]
73 CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
[Dissent]
73 YATES V. UNITED STATES
[Dissent]
73 RENO V. ACLU
[Concurrence]
73 BAKER V. CARR
[Opinion]
73 POLLOCK V. WILLIAMS
[Syllabus]
73 BOOTH V. MARYLAND
[Dissent]
73 IN RE GAULT
[Opinion]
73 REID V. COVERT
[Concurrence]
73 WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA
[Dissent]