Search Results


Case name Citation Summary
A. & G. Stevedores v. Ellerman Lines 1962/02/20 Docket No: none
A Quantity Of Books v. Kansas 1964/04/01 Docket No: none
A & P Tea Co. v. Cottrell 1975/12/01 Docket No: none
44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island 1995/11/01 Docket No: none
324 Liquor Corp. v. Duffy 1986/11/03 Docket No: none
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett 2008/12/01 Docket No: none
Astrue v. Capato 2012/03/19 Docket No: none
Armour v. City of Indianapolis 2012/02/29 Docket No: none
Sackett v. EPA 2012/03/21 Docket No: none
Missouri v. Frye 2012/03/21 Docket No: none
Lafler v. Cooper 2012/03/21 Docket No: none
Golan v. Holder 2011/03/07 TBD
Bullcoming v. New Mexico 2011/06/23 A defendant's Confrontation Clause rights cover a non-testifying laboratory analyst whose supervisor testifies as to test results that the analyst transcribed from a machine.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 2011/06/27 The Constitution prevents the state of California from banning the sale of violent video games to minors.
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting 2011/05/26 An Arizona law that sanctions employers who hire illegal immigrants is not preempted by federal immigration law.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn 2011/04/04 Taxpayers lack standing to challenge a tax credit program that provides dollar-for-dollar incentives to donations to school tuition groups, including those awarding tuition scholarships only to religious schools.
Connick v. Thompson 2011/03/29 A prosecutor's office cannot be held liable for a single Brady violation by one of its members on the theory that the office provided inadequate training.
Brown v. Plata 2011/05/23 A three-judge panel of the District Court properly ordered the California prison system to release prisoners to resolve overcrowding.
Swarthout v. Cooke 2011/01/24 State prisoners have no Constitutional right to parole
Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary v. Moore 2011/01/19 Habeas relief may not be granted with respect to any claim a state-court has found on the merits unless the state-court decision denying relief involves an "unreasonable application" of "clearly established federal law, as determined by" the Court.