Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Chandler Vs. Miller

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 15, 1997

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

41 entries 7 linked 34 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcdaniel Vs. Paty US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1978
  2. Bond Vs. Floyd US Supreme Court · Dec 05, 1966
  3. United States Vs. Martinez-fuerte US Supreme Court · Jul 06, 1976
  4. New York Vs. Burger US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1987
  5. Vernonia School Dist. 47j Vs. Acton US Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1995
  6. Gregory Vs. Ashcroft US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1991
  7. New State Ice Co. Vs. Liebmann US Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1932
  8. U.S. 305 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Chandler Et Al. V. Miller
    Search
  9. on this Court's precedents sustaining drug-testing programs for student athletes, Vernonia School Dist. 4- 7 J v. Acton
    Search
  10. U. S. 646 , 650, 665-666, Customs Service employees, Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  11. Raab, 489 U. S. 656 , 659, and railway employees, Skinner v. Railway
    Search
  12. See Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  13. circumstances include brief stops for questioning or observation at a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
    Search
  14. U. S. 543 , 545-550, 566-567 (1976), or at a sobriety checkpoint, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  15. businesses, New York v. Burger
    Search
  16. programs for student athletes, customs employees, and railway employees, see Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton
    Search
  17. Skinner v. Railway
    Search
  18. Id., at 657 (quoting New Jersey v. because
    Search
  19. it under the Tenth Amendment, to establish qualifications for those who seek state office. Respondents rely on Gregory v. Ashcroft
    Search
  20. Communist Party of Ind. v. Whitcomb
    Search
  21. In Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  22. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von
    Search
  23. to demonstrate the agency's commitment to enforcement of the law. See Brief for United States in Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  24. Olmstead v. United
    Search
  25. on financial disclosure requirements, which implicate different concerns and procedures. See, e. g., Barry v. City
    Search
  26. Plante v. Gonzalez
    Search
  27. not speak to drug testing in the private sector, a domain unguarded by Fourth Amendment constraints. See United States v. Jacobsen
    Search
  28. Ante, at 309. But if we are to heed the oft-quoted words of Justice Brandeis in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann
    Search
  29. of our society. Cases before this Court involving drug use extend to numerous occupations-railway employees, Skinner v. Railway
    Search
  30. Labor Executives' Assn., 489 U. S. 602 (1989), Border Patrol officers, Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  31. Raab, 489 U. S. 656 (1989), high school students, Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton
    Search
  32. U. S. 646 (1995), and machine operators, Paperworkers v. Misco
    Search
  33. information.' Department of Navy v. Egan
    Search
  34. Syllabus Chandler Et Al. V. Miller
    Search
  35. Treasury Employees v. Von
    Search
  36. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz
    Search
  37. New Jersey v. because
    Search
  38. Barry v. City
    Search
  39. See United States v. Jacobsen
    Search
  40. Paperworkers v. Misco
    Search
  41. Department of Navy v. Egan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial