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 testimony returned 123 results.

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

1000 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In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence.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?
958 KUMHO TIRE CO. V. CARMICHAEL
[Syllabus]
826
[Syllabus]
826 BAKER BY THOMAS V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 522 U.S. 222 (1998)
[Syllabus]
826 CARMELL V. TEXAS
[Syllabus]
Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
795
[Syllabus]
795 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
757 ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
757
[Syllabus]
757 CLARK V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
716 GILES V. CALIFORNIA
[Syllabus]
671 UNITED STATES V. HUBBELL
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination protects information previously recorded in voluntarily created documents that a defendant delivers to the government pursuant to an immunized act of production. 2. Whether a defendant's act producing ordinary business records constitutes a compelled testimonial communication solely because the government cannot identify the documents with reasonable particularity before they are produced."
671 KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE
[Syllabus]
671 WEISGRAM  V.  MARLEY CO.
[Syllabus]
1. If the District Court erred in admitting the testimony of the Plaintiffs' experts and the relief to be awarded is a new trial, is the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's decision in conflict with its own precedent and decisions of other United States Courts of Appeal if it granted judgment as a matter of law to Marley Company after excising portions of Plaintiffs' experts' testimony?
671
[Syllabus]
671 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. V. JOINER, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
[Syllabus]
619
[Syllabus]
619 STRICKLER V. GREENE
[Syllabus]
619 HARRINGTON V. RICHTER
[Syllabus]
619 FRY V. PLILER
[Syllabus]
553
[Syllabus]
553 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
553 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?
553 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).
553 BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO
[Syllabus]
553 MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Syllabus]
553 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
553 TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995).
[Syllabus]
477 HUNT V. CROMARTIE
[Syllabus]
The District Court's conclusion that North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause in drawing its Twelfth Congressional District's boundaries is based on clearly erroneous findings.
477 VAN V. GOLDSTEIN
[Syllabus]
477 BROWN V. PLATA
[Syllabus]
477 RICCI V. DESTEFANO
[Syllabus]
477 CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
477 CULLEN V. PINHOLSTER
[Syllabus]
477 DAVIS V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
477 UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR, 515 U.S. 593 (1995).
[Syllabus]
477 SCHRIRO V. LANDRIGAN
[Syllabus]
477 UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 UNITED STATES V. SCHEFFER, 523 U.S. 303 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 MILLER-EL V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
377 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.
377 FRIENDS OF EARTH, INC. V. LAIDLAW ENVI-RONMENTAL SERVICES (TOC), INC.
[Syllabus]
1. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co. V. Citizens for Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. 1003 (1998), due to lack of redressability, where plaintiffs had standing at the time of the complaint and have shown continuing injury-in-fact but have not obtained injunctive relief. 2. Whether a citizen suit seeking civil penalties under Section 505 of the Clean Water Act is constitutionally moot under Steel Co., due to lack of redressability, when the district court has rendered a declaratory judgment as to liability and the issue of liability was contested. 3. Whether plaintiffs could not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs not be awarded attorneys' fees or litigation costs because the case was dismissed for mootness, even if the litigation was responsible for bringing the defendant into compliance with the Clean Water Act.
377 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.
377 OHLER V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant waives her right to appeal a ruling granting the government's in limine motion to introduce evidence of her prior conviction under Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1) if she attempts to "" remove the sting"" of the conviction by introducing the conviction while testifying on direct examination?"
377
[Syllabus]
377 CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
377 BAZE V. REES
[Syllabus]
377
[Syllabus]
377 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
377 UNITED STATES V. PATANE
[Syllabus]
Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
377 CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998)
[Syllabus]
377 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?"
377
[Syllabus]
377 KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
[Syllabus]
377 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSEBD. V. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
[Syllabus]
377 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
377 MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO., 497 U.S. 1 (1990)
[Syllabus]
377 KANSAS V. VENTRIS
[Syllabus]
377 GEORGIA V. ASHCROFT
[Syllabus]
1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
238
[Syllabus]
238 COOPER V. OKLAHOMA, 517 U.S. 348 (1996).
[Syllabus]
238 BREWER V. QUARTERMAN
[Syllabus]
238 HARBOR TUG & BARGE CO. V. PAPAI ET UX., 520 U.S. 548 (1997).
[Syllabus]
238 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?
238 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.
238 ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997).
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 SMITH V. MASSACHUSETTS
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
[Syllabus]
Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
238
[Syllabus]
238 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 MASSARO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
238 ROMPILLA V. BEARD
[Syllabus]
238 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
238 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""?
238
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238 UNITED STATES V. NAVAJO NATION
[Syllabus]
238 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.
238
[Syllabus]
238 UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON
[Syllabus]
The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches.
238
[Syllabus]
238 NORFOLK & WESTERN R. CO. V. AYERS
[Syllabus]
Mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under the Federal Employers' Liability Act by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos; the FELA's express terms, reinforced by consistent judicial applications of the Act, allow such a worker to recover his entire damages from a railroad whose negligence jointly caused his injury, thus placing on the railroad the burden of seeking contribution from other potential tortfeasors.
238 IDAHO V. WRIGHT, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238 MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
[Syllabus]
238 HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB
[Syllabus]
Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
238 MEACHAM V. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LABORATORY
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238
[Syllabus]
238 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
238 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. V. FCC
[Syllabus]
The Federal Communications Commission can require state utility commissions to set the rates charged for leased telecommunications network elements on a forward-looking basis untied to the network owners' investment, and can require those owners to combine such elements upon the request of a leasing competitor that cannot do the combining itself.
238 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?
238 STATE OIL CO. V. KHAN, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)
[Syllabus]
238 KELLY V. SOUTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
Petitioner was entitled to a jury instruction that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence.
238
[Syllabus]
238 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?"
238 INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE
[Syllabus]
238 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.
238 TEXACO, INC. V. HASBROUCK, 496 U.S. 543 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238 SMITH V. SPISAK
[Syllabus]
238 SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 FLORIDA V. NIXON
[Syllabus]
238 HODGSON V. MINNESOTA, 497 U.S. 417 (1990)
[Syllabus]
238 ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
238 FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM.
[Syllabus]
Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
238
[Syllabus]
238 PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS
[Syllabus]
When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
238 KAWAAUHAU V. GEIGER, 523 U.S. 57 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. V. MENDELSOHN
[Syllabus]
238 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.
238 KALINA V. FLETCHER, 522 U.S. 118 (1997)
[Syllabus]
238 KOLSTAD V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSN.
[Syllabus]
238 BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
238 LILLY V. VIRGINIA
[Syllabus]
238 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
238 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.
238 DOE V. CHAO
[Syllabus]
238 LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS, INC. V.PSKS, INC.
[Syllabus]