Citation network
Lawrence Vs. Chater
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 08, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
S. 163 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Lawrence, Guardian and Next Friend on Behalf of Lawrence, a Minor V. ChaterSearch
-
she cannot meet. She contends, however, that these difficulties can be overcome in her case as they were in Handley v. SchweikerSearch
-
In his dissent issued today in this case and in Stutson v. UnitedSearch
-
see post, at 180 (SCALIA, J., dissenting), State Supreme Court decisions, see, 167 e. g., Conner v. SimlerSearch
-
U. S. 486 (1961), new federal statutes, see, e. g., Sioux Tribe of Indians v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 329 U. S. 685 (1946), administrative reinterpretations of federal statutes, see, e. g., Schmidt v. EspySearch
-
U. S. 801 (1994), new state statutes, see, e. g., Louisiana v. HaysSearch
-
U. S. 1230 (1994), changed factual circumstances, see, e. g., NLRB v. FederalSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of employees), and confessions of error or other positions newly taken by the Solicitor General, see, e. g., Wells v. UnitedSearch
-
Reed v. UnitedSearch
-
Ramirez v. UnitedSearch
-
Chappell v. UnitedSearch
-
Polsky v. WetherillSearch
-
U. S. 916 (1971), and state attorneys general, see, e. g., Cuffle v. AvenentiSearch
-
is inherent in our inability to grant plenary review of all pending cases raising similar issues, see United States v. JohnsonSearch
-
cf. Griffith v. KentuckySearch
-
See, e. g., Heckler v. LopezSearch
-
factor has arisen that has a legal bearing upon the decision, (2) where, in a context not governed by Michigan v. LongSearch
-
is to be assessed. In Robinson v. StorySearch
-
to vacate and remand in Stutson after relevant briefing and a summary order below), with, e. g., Netherland v. TuggleSearch
-
this Court itself granted a stay a week later, applying that precedent, see Tuggle v. NetherlandSearch
-
Mariscal v. UnitedSearch
-
a new agency interpretation of a statute that is entitled to deference under the rule of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. NaturalSearch
-
cf., e. g., Moore v. UnitedSearch
-
d on the basis of a reasonable probability of a change in result in nonconfession of error cases, see, e. g., Robinson v. StorySearch
-
should apply to GVR's in habeas corpus cases in which the procedural bar that we recognized in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
support the GVR order. Indeed, we issued just such a GVR order last Term, without recorded dissent. See Schmidt v. EspySearch
-
Brief for Respondent in Schmidt v. EspySearch
-
accord, Alvarado v. UnitedSearch
-
This opinion applies also to No. 94-8988, Stutson v. UnitedSearch
-
for the reasons given by JUSTICE SCALIA, that the Court is mistaken in vacating the judgment in No. 94-8988, Stutson v. UnitedSearch
-
Of the three cases that he cites for this proposition, one, Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
writ of error and therefore was required to be decided on the merits. The second, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. DuelSearch
-
us on appeal from a State Supreme Court, and was thus also required to be decided on the merits. The third, Huddleston v. DwyerSearch
-
in the per curiam to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in No. 94-9323, Lawrence v. ChaterSearch
-
tions remaining in the litigation. Our books are full of such cases, from Glass v. SloopSearch
-
Betsey, 3 Dall. 6 (1794), and Clarke v. RusselSearch
-
Dall. 415 (1799), to Vernonia School Dist. J,,7Jv. Acton, 515 U. S. 646 (1995), and Tuggle v. NetherlandSearch
-
Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. SweeneySearch
-
to portray our no-fault V &R practice as traditionally covering a kaleidoscopic diversity of situations. See Lawrence v. ChaterSearch
-
special deference owed to state law and state courts in our system of federalism. In Missouri ex rel. Wabash R. Co. v. PublicSearch
-
event, rather than follow our usual practice of deciding that question for ourselves, see, e. g., Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSearch
-
Wall. 450, 456-458 (1865). See generally United 180 States v. SchoonerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial