Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Did you mean insanity or mental and health?

Your query insanity or (mental and health) returned 18 results.

	PARHAM V. J.R. [Opinion]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROE V. WADE [Opinion]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Opinion]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL MISSOURI V. DANFORTH [Opinion]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Opinion]
	AKRON V. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, INC. [Dissent]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Opinion]
	PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA V. CASEY [Opinion]
	ATKINS V. VIRGINIA [Opinion]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Opinion]
	BEAL V. DOE [Opinion]
	******** [Dissent]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Dissent]
	PARHAM V. J.R. [Syllabus]
	LOCHNER V. NEW YORK [Dissent]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Opinion]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Concurrence]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Opinion]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. MCRAE [Dissent]
	CRUZAN BY CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH [Dissent]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Dissent]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES [Dissent]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Opinion]
	HODGSON V. MINNESOTA [Opinion]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Opinion]
	NORTHERN PIPELINE CONSTR. CO. V. MARATHON PIPE LINE CO. [Opinion]
	BLUM V. YARETSKY [Opinion]
	PENNHURST STATE SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL V. HALDERMAN [Dissent]
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Dissent]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Opinion]
	HUTCHINSON V. PROXMIRE [Opinion]
	POWELL V. TEXAS [Opinion]
	EDDINGS V. OKLAHOMA [Dissent]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Opinion]
	STANFORD V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	EMPLOYMENT DIVISION V. SMITH [Concurrence]
	DOE V. BOLTON [Dissent]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	CITY OF CLEBURNE, TEXAS V. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC. [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	******** [Opinion]
	ROBINSON V. CALIFORNIA [Opinion]
	SANTOSKY V. KRAMER [Opinion]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	A BOOK NAMED "JOHN CLELAND'S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE" V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS [Dissent]
	HAMPTON V. MOW SUN WONG [Opinion]
	BOWERS V. HARDWICK [Dissent]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Opinion]
	HUDSON V. MCMILLIAN [Dissent]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	GARCIA V. SAN ANTONIO TRANSIT AUTHORITY [Dissent]
	AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN. V. DOUDS [Opinion]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Concur in part, dissent in part]
	ROMER V. EVANS [Opinion]
	LUCAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL [Opinion]
	YOUNGBERG V. ROMEO [Concurrence]
	GOLDMAN V. WEINBERGER [Opinion]
	OSBORNE V. OHIO [Opinion]
	IN RE GAULT [Opinion]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Dissent]
	DESHANEY V. WINNEBAGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	MEYER V. STATE OF NEBRASKA [Opinion]
	PARIS ADULT THEATRE I V. SLATON [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Dissent]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. GORE [Opinion]
	FREEMAN V. PITTS [Opinion]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Opinion]
	INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW V. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. [Concurrence]
	FORD V. WAINWRIGHT [Dissent]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON [Concurrence]
	BUCK V. BELL [Opinion]
	JOHNSON V. ROBISON [Opinion]
	YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER [Concurrence]
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS [Opinion]
	MICHAEL M. V. SUPERIOR COURT [Opinion]
	ROSENBLOOM V. METROMEDIA [Concurrence]
	WALZ V. TAX COMM'N OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK [Concurrence]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SCHNECKLOTH V. BUSTAMONTE [Opinion]
	CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. V. BUTTS [Opinion]
	TROXEL V. GRANVILLE [Dissent]
	COKER V. GEORGIA [Opinion]
	DOE V. MCMILLAN [Opinion]
	RANKIN V. MCPHERSON [Opinion]
	DANDRIDGE V. WILLIAMS [Opinion]
	NEW YORK V. FERBER [Syllabus]
	BATSON V. KENTUCKY [Dissent]
	MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND [Concurrence]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG [Concurrence]
	DELAWARE V. PROUSE [Opinion]
	GLIDDEN CO. V. ZDANOK [Opinion]
	CAREY V. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL [Concurrence]
	MATHEWS V. ELDRIDGE [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN V. YODER [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. OKLAHOMA [Opinion]
	BOWEN V. ROY [Concurrence]
	SCHALL V. MARTIN [Opinion]
	LASSITER V. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES [Opinion]
	DAWSON V. DELAWARE [Dissent]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	FOUCHA V. LOUISIANA, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SHANNON V. UNITED STATES, 512 U.S. 573 (1994). [Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	OLMSTEAD V. L. C. [Syllabus]
	KANSAS V. HENDRICKS, 117 S.CT. 2072, 138 L.ED.2D 501 (1997). [Syllabus]
	HELLER V. DOE, 509 U.S. 312 (1993). [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BRAGDON V. ABBOTT, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MEDINA V. CALIFORNIA, 505 U.S. 437 (1992). [Syllabus]
	RIGGINS V. NEVADA, 504 U.S. 127 (1992). [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JAFFEE V. REDMOND, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) [Syllabus]
	BELL V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	LINDH V. MURPHY, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 2059, 138 L.ED.2D 481 (1997). [Syllabus]
	SAWYER V. WHITLEY, 505 U.S. 333 (1992). [Syllabus]
	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).