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 reasonable and doubt returned 117 results.

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

1000
[Syllabus]
745 ALLENTOWN MACK SALES AND SERVICE, INC. V. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359 (1998)
[Syllabus]
745
[Syllabus]
678
[Syllabus]
636
[Syllabus]
598 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
570 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
570 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."
538 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.
528 SCHLUP V. DELO, 513 U.S. 298 (1995).
[Syllabus]
528 WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD
[Syllabus]
509 DIXON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
509 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
503
[Syllabus]
490 RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. V. CHERTOFF
[Syllabus]
490 FIELD ET AL. V. MANS, 516 U.S. 59 (1995).
[Syllabus]
474 KANSAS V. MARSH
[Syllabus]
458
[Syllabus]
439 MONGE V. CALIFORNIA, 524 U.S. 721 (1998)
[Syllabus]
439 UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN
[Syllabus]
439 NEDER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
439
[Syllabus]
439 CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
426 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC.
[Syllabus]
417 AUCIELLO IRON WORKS, INC. V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 517 U.S. 781 (1996)
[Syllabus]
417 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
394 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
394
[Syllabus]
394 SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. #1 V. REDDING
[Syllabus]
391 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.
391 PALAZZOLO V. RHODE ISLAND
[Syllabus]
Petitioner's claim that Rhode Island's application of its wetlands regulations took his property without compensation in violation of the Takings Clause is ripe for review and is not barred by his acquisition of title after the regulations' effective date; however, he failed to establish a deprivation of all economic use, for the parcel retains significant development value.
391 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.
363 FOWLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
363 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
363 NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSN.,INC. V. GULF POWER CO.
[Syllabus]
The Pole Attachments Act authorizes the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the rates that utilities charge for attachments providing high-speed Internet access at the same time as cable television and for attachments providing wireless telecommunications.
363 REEVES V. SANDERSON PLUMBING PRODUCTS, INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, is direct evidence of discriminatory intent required to avoid judgment as a matter of law for the employer? 2. In determining whether to grant judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, should a District Judge weigh all of the evidence or consider only the evidence favoring the non-movant? 3. Whether the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 is the same as the standard for granting judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50?"
363 SPECTOR V. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.
[Syllabus]
363 KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL
[Syllabus]
347 HARRIS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
347 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?
347 BERGHUIS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
347 UNITED STATES V. BOOKER
[Syllabus]
347 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
347 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.
347 ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 252 (1998)
[Syllabus]
347 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).
347
[Syllabus]
347 HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998)
[Syllabus]
347 IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
[Syllabus]
347 LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC.
[Syllabus]
The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
347
[Syllabus]
328 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
328 MISSOURI V. SEIBERT
[Syllabus]
Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
328 RICE V. COLLINS
[Syllabus]
328 CARR V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
328 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.
328 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
328 SKILLING V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
283 BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY
[Syllabus]
283
[Syllabus]
283 RENICO V. LETT
[Syllabus]
283 WEEKS V. ANGELONE
[Syllabus]
1. Is there any ""compelling"" reason to review the Fourth Circuit's application of this Court's recent decision in Buchannan V. Angelone, 118 S. Ct. 757 (1998), to the facts of petitioner's case, which are substantially indistinguishable from those in Buchanan?"
283 TYLER V. CAIN
[Syllabus]
The rule in Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U. S. 39-that a jury instruction is unconstitutional if there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury understood it to allow conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt-was not "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court," within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(2)(A).
283
[Syllabus]
283 UNITED STATES V. TOHONO OODHAM NATION
[Syllabus]
283 MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY
[Syllabus]
283 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?
283
[Syllabus]
283 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.
283 AMERICAN INS. ASSN. V. GARAMENDI
[Syllabus]
California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
283 BARNHART V. WALTON
[Syllabus]
The Social Security Administration's interpretations of the Social Security Act provisions that authorize payment of Social Security disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income to individuals who have an "inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable . . . impairment . . . which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months," 42 U. S. C. §423(d)(1)(A); accord, §1382c(a)(3)(A), are lawful.
283 JONES V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
283 EDELMAN V. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
[Syllabus]
An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer of a charge alleging job discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to verify the charge after the time for filing it has expired is an unassailable interpretation of §706 of that Act and is therefore valid.
219 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997).
[Syllabus]
219 HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES, INC. V. PFENNIG
[Syllabus]
Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
219 DECK V. MISSOURI
[Syllabus]
219 LUNDING V. NEW YORK TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL, 522 U.S. 287 (1998)
[Syllabus]
219
[Syllabus]
219
[Syllabus]
219 UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ
[Syllabus]
219 BOYLE V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
219 SATTAZAHN V. PENNSYLVANIA
[Syllabus]
Neither the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial when he was given a life sentence at his first trial.
219 WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
219 UNITED STATES V. MARCUS
[Syllabus]
219 CITY OF LITTLETON V. Z.J. GIFTS D4, L.L.C.
[Syllabus]
Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?
219
[Syllabus]
219 TRW INC. V. ANDREWS
[Syllabus]
The Fair Credit Reporting Act's statute of limitations-which requires an action to be brought "within two years from the date on which the liability arises, except that where a defendant has . . . willfully misrepresented any information required . . . to be disclosed to [the plaintiff] and the information . . . is material to [a claim under the Act], the action may be brought at any time within two years after [the plaintiff's] discovery . . . of the misrepresentation"-is not governed by a general rule that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that she was injured.
219
[Syllabus]
219 UNITED STATES V. HAYES
[Syllabus]
219 BOBBY V. BIES
[Syllabus]
219 KUCANA V. HOLDER
[Syllabus]
219 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
219 UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).
[Syllabus]
219 SHALALA V. GUERNSEY MEMORIAL HOSP., 514 U.S. 87 (1995).
[Syllabus]
219 COOK COUNTY V. UNITED STATES EX REL.CHANDLER
[Syllabus]
Local governments are "persons" amenable to qui tam actions under the federal False Claims Act.
219 STRICKLER V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
219 DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
219 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
219 CRAWFORD-EL V. BRITTON, 523 U.S. 574 (1998)
[Syllabus]
219
[Syllabus]
219 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?
219 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?"
219
[Syllabus]
219 CUOMO V. CLEARING HOUSE ASSN., L. L. C.
[Syllabus]
219 MONTEREY V. DEL MONTE DUNES ATMONTEREY, LTD.
[Syllabus]
219 RIVERA V. ILLINOIS
[Syllabus]
219
[Syllabus]
219 GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DIST. V. UNITED STATES EX REL. WILSON
[Syllabus]
219 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
219 PGA TOUR, INC. V. MARTIN
[Syllabus]
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits petitioner from denying golfer Casey Martin equal access to its golf tours on the basis of a disability that prevents him from walking a golf course; allowing Martin to use a golf cart, despite petitioner's walking requirement, is not a modification that would "fundamentally alter the nature" of petitioner's tours.
219 GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. V. CLINE
[Syllabus]
Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
219
[Syllabus]
219 TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990)
[Syllabus]
219 PEGRAM V. HERDRICH
[Syllabus]
Whether a health maintenance organization (""HMO"") and its physicians breach a fiduciary duty under section 404(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. 1404(a)(1), by implementing a managed care program in which the physicians receive financial incentives to provide medical care to the HMO's enrollees in a cost-effective manner.
219
[Syllabus]
219 LILLY V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
219 TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
[Syllabus]