Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean sixth or Th and amendment?

Your query sixth or 6th and amendment returned 119 results.

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

	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Concurrence]
	GANNETT CO., INC. V. DEPASQUALE [Opinion]
	HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. [Syllabus] Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK [Opinion]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MONROE V. PAPE [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GERTZ V. ROBERT WELCH, INC. [Dissent]
	ILLINOIS V. GATES [Concurrence]
	RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC. V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	******** [Opinion]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Opinion]
	R.A.V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL [Opinion]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	WILLIAMS V. FLORIDA [Dissent]
	REID V. COVERT [Opinion]
	NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN [Opinion]
	MILLER V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	HELLING V. MCKINNEY [Dissent]
	******** [Opinion]
	EX PARTE QUIRIN [Opinion]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GREATER PITTSBURGH CHAPTER [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Dissent]
	CRIST V. BRETZ [Dissent]
	POWELL V. MCCORMACK [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. WATSON [Concurrence]
	CRIST V. BRETZ [Opinion]
	BUTZ V. ECONOMOU [Opinion]
	ADAIR V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS V. FINLEY [Concurrence]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Dissent]
	ARIZONA V. FULMINANTE [Opinion]
	HOBBIE V. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMM'N OF FLORIDA [Opinion]
	BARTKUS V. ILLINOIS [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Concurrence]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	MYERS V. UNITED STATES [Opinion]
	INS V. CHADHA [Dissent]
	CHICAGO V. MORALES [Dissent]
	JOSEPH BURSTYN, INC. V. WILSON [Concurrence]
	UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Opinion]
	EX PARTE GROSSMAN [Opinion]
	UNITED STATES V. PETERS [Syllabus]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	EX PARTE MILLIGAN [Opinion]
	GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT [Concurrence]
	HURTADO V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	NIXON V. ADMINISTRATOR OF GENERAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	SCHICK V. REED [Opinion]
	LUTHER V. BORDEN [Dissent]
	UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ [Concurrence]
	CHISHOLM V. GEORGIA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Concurrence]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Dissent]
	POLLOCK V. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST COMPANY (REHEARING) [Dissent]
	SCOTT V. SANDFORD [Opinion]
	DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. UNITED STATES HOUSE [Concurrence]
	TEXAS V. WHITE [Syllabus]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO. [Concurrence]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	HIIBEL V. SIXTH JUDICIAL DIST. COURT OF NEV.,HUMBOLDT CTY. [Syllabus] Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
	GRANHOLM V. HEALD [Syllabus]
	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)?
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE V. LANE [Syllabus] Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
	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.
	TEXAS V. COBB [Syllabus] Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	[Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	TENNESSEE STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION V. HOOD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CUYAHOGA FALLS V. BUCKEYE COMMUNITYHOPE FOUNDATION [Syllabus] Respondents have presented no genuine issues of material fact with regard to whether Cuyahoga Falls violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses by submitting to voters a facially neutral referendum petition calling for the repeal of a municipal ordinance authorizing construction of a low-income housing complex.
	ROTHGERY V. GILLESPIE COUNTY [Syllabus]
	WATTERS V. WACHOVIA BANK, N. A. [Syllabus]
	BOBBY V. BIES [Syllabus]
	OREGON V. ICE [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. VENTRIS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR [Syllabus] Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
	[Syllabus]
	FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	[Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	MCCREARY COUNTY V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIESUNION OF KY. [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	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?
	GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
	DILLON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	OSBORN V. HALEY [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MAYLE V. FELIX [Syllabus]
	PORTUONDO V. AGARD [Syllabus] Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RIVERA V. ILLINOIS [Syllabus]
	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.
	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).
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS [Syllabus]
	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."
	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."
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BRENTWOOD ACADEMY V. TENNESSEE SECONDARYSCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. [Syllabus] Whether the regulatory conduct of a nominally private secondary school athletic association, which ""establishes and enforces all of the rules by which high school teams and players, at both public and private schools, compete throughout the state of Tennessee,"" Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School athletic Ass'n, 190 F.3rd 705 (6th Cir. 1999) (Merritt, J., dissenting from the denial of petition for rehearing en banc), and whose ""membership consist(s) entirely of institutions located within the same State, many of them public institutions created by the same sovereign, "" NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179, 193 n. 13 (1988), constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and under 42 U.S.C. 1983."
	GRATZ V. BOLLINGER [Syllabus] 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
	ORTIZ V. JORDAN [Syllabus]
	CUTTER V. WILKINSON [Syllabus]
	CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ [Syllabus]
	RITA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. BRYANT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MOSELEY V. V SECRET CATALOGUE, INC. [Syllabus] The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of actual dilution; the evidence in this case is insufficient to support summary judgment for respondents on the dilution count.
	JERMAN V. CARLISLE, MCNELLIE, RINI,KRAMER & ULRICH LPA [Syllabus]
	KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS V. EEOC [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WALTON V. ARIZONA, 497 U.S. 639 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. URSERY, 518 U.S. 267 (1996). [Syllabus]
	STONE V. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SAENZ V. ROE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	GILES V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	PADILLA V. KENTUCKY [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	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).
	INDIANA V. EDWARDS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DENEDO [Syllabus]
	BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S 322 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1 [Syllabus]
	VERMONT V. BRILLON [Syllabus]
	TURNER V. ROGERS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	PREMO V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	CAMPBELL V. LOUISIANA, 523 U.S. 392 (1998) [Syllabus]
	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.
	[Syllabus]
	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.
	UTTECHT V. BROWN [Syllabus]
	WIGGINS V. SMITH [Syllabus] Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
	CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	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.
	GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) [Syllabus]
	DOGGETT V. UNITED STATES, 505 U.S. 647 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HARRINGTON V. RICHTER [Syllabus]
	PEPPER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GLOVER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that an additional 6 to 21 months in prison due to counsel's error relating to the sentencing guidelines fails to satisfy the "prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a 2-level error in the offense level under the sentencing guidelines was per se insufficient to satisfy the ''prejudice" prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668(1984), even where this 2-level error resulted in the petitioner being sentenced to an additional 6 to 21 months in prison.
	MICKENS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] In order to demonstrate a Sixth Amendment violation where the trial court fails to inquire into defense counsel's potential conflict of interest about which the court knew or reasonably should have known, the defendant must establish that the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance.
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) [Syllabus]
	LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BOUMEDIENE V. BUSH [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RUIZ [Syllabus] The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]