Us Supreme Court Court June 2002 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Stewart Vs. Smith
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-28-2002
Stewart v. Smith - 536 U.S. 856 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v. SMITH CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 01-339. Decided June 28, 2002 Respondent filed a federal habeas petition, claiming, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel. He had previously brought that claim in a state petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, but the County Superior Court found it waived under Rule 32.2(a)(3) because he had not raised it in two previous Rule 32 petitions. The Federal District Court concluded that the state court's ruling barred federal habeas relief, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the state procedural default was not independent of federal law and thus did not bar federal review. This Court granted certiorari and certified to the Arizona Supreme Court a question concerning Rule 32.2(a)(3)'s proper interpretation. The latte...
Hope Vs. Pelzer
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Hope v. Pelzer - 536 U.S. 730 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus HOPE v. PELZER ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 01-309. Argued April 17, 2002-Decided June 27, 2002 In 1995, petitioner Hope, then an Alabama prison inmate, was twice handcuffed to a hitching post for disruptive conduct. During a 2-hour period in May, he was offered drinking water and a bathroom break every 15 minutes, and his responses were recorded on an activity log. He was handcuffed above shoulder height, and when he tried moving his arms to improve circulation, the handcuffs cut into his wrists, causing pain and discomfort. Mter an altercation with a guard at his chain gang's work site in June, Hope was subdued, handcuffed, placed in leg irons, and transported back to the prison, where he was ordered to take off his shirt, thus exposing himself to the sun, and spent seven hours on the hitching post. While there, he was given one or two water breaks but no ...
Zelman Vs. Simmons-harris
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - 536 U.S. 639 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No.00-1751. Argued February 20, 2002-Decided June 27, 2002* Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program gives educational choices to families in any Ohio school district that is under state control pursuant to a federal-court order. The program provides tuition aid for certain students in the Cleveland City School District, the only covered district, to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing and tutorial aid for students who choose to remain enrolled in public school. Both religious and nonreligious schools in the district may participate, as may public schools in adjacent school districts. Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need, and where the aid is spent depends solely upon where parents c...
Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. V ...
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Board of Ed. of Independent School Dist. No. 92 of Pottawatomie Cty. v. Earls - 536 U.S. 822 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY ET AL. v. EARLS ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT No. 01-332. Argued March 19, 2002-Decided June 27, 2002 The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted by the Tecumseh, Oklahoma, School District (School District) requires all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity. In practice, the Policy has been applied only to competitive extracurricular activities sanctioned by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Respondent high school students and their parents brought this 42 U. S. C. 1983 action for equitable relief, alleging that the Policy violates the Fourth Amendment. Applying Vernonia School Dist. 47J ...
Republican Party of Minn. Vs. White
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-27-2002
Republican Party of Minn. v. White - 536 U.S. 765 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. v. WHITE, CHAIRPERSON, MINNESOTA BOARD OF JUDICIAL STANDARDS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No.01-521. Argued March 26, 2002-Decided June 27, 2002 The Minnesota Supreme Court has adopted a canon of judicial conduct that prohibits a "candidate for a judicial office" from "announc[ing] his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" (hereinafter announce clause). While running for associate justice of that court, petitioner Gregory Wersal (and others) filed this suit seeking a declaration that the announce clause violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its enforcement. The District Court granted respondent officials summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Held: The announce clause violates the First Amendment. Pp. 770-788. (a) The record demonstrates that the announce clause...
Beandk; Constr. Co. Vs. Nlrb
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
BE&K; Constr. Co. v. NLRB - 536 U.S. 516 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus BE&K CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 01-518. Argued April 16, 2002-Decided June 24, 2002 Petitioner, who had a contract to modernize a steel mill, and the mill owner filed a federal lawsuit against respondent unions, claiming that the unions had engaged in lobbying, litigation, and other concerted activities in order to delay the project because petitioner had nonunion employees. Ultimately, petitioner lost on or withdrew each of its claims. In the meantime, two unions lodged complaints against petitioner with respondent National Labor Relations Board (Board). Mter the federal court proceedings ended, the Board's general counsel issued an administrative complaint, alleging that petitioner, by filing and maintaining its lawsuit, had violated 8(a)(I) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which pro...
Ring Vs. Arizona
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Ring v. Arizona - 536 U.S. 584 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus RING v. ARIZONA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA No. 01-488. Argued April 22, 2002-Decided June 24, 2002 At petitioner Ring's Arizona trial for murder and related offenses, the jury deadlocked on premeditated murder, but found Ring guilty of felony murder occurring in the course of armed robbery. Under Arizona law, Ring could not be sentenced to death, the statutory maximum penalty for first-degree murder, unless further findings were made by a judge conducting a separate sentencing hearing. The judge at that stage must determine the existence or nonexistence of statutorily enumerated "aggravating circumstances" and any "mitigating circumstances." The death sentence may be imposed only if the judge finds at least one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to call for leniency. Following such a hearing, Ring's trial judge sentenced him to death. Because the jury...
Harris Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Harris v. United States - 536 U.S. 545 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus HARRIS v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-10666. Argued March 25, 2002-Decided June 24, 2002 Petitioner, who sold illegal narcotics at his pawnshop with an unconcealed semiautomatic pistol at his side, was arrested for violating, inter alia, 18 U. S. C. 924(c)(I)(A), which provides in relevant part that a person who in relation to a drug trafficking crime uses or carries a firearm "shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime," "(i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years; (ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to ... not less than 7 years; and (iii) if the firearm is discharged, be sentenced to ... not less than 10 years." Because the Government proceeded on the assumption that the provision defines a single crime and that brandishing is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge following ...
United States Vs. Ruiz
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
United States v. Ruiz - 536 U.S. 622 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. RUIZ CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 01-595. Argued April 24, 2002-Decided June 24, 2002 Mter immigration agents found marijuana in respondent Ruiz's luggage, federal prosecutors offered her a "fast track" plea bargain, whereby she would waive indictment, trial, and an appeal in exchange for a reduced sentence recommendation. Among other things, the prosecutors' standard "fast track" plea agreement acknowledges the Government's continuing duty to turn over information establishing the defendant's factual innocence, but requires that she waive the right to receive impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses, as well as information supporting any affirmative defense she raises if the case goes to trial. Because Ruiz would not agree to the latter waiver, the prosecutors withdrew their bargaining offer, and she was indicted f...
Atkins Vs. Virginia
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Jun-20-2002
Atkins v. Virginia - 536 U.S. 304 (2002) OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus ATKINS v. VIRGINIA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA No. 00-8452. Argued February 20, 2002-Decided June 20, 2002 Petitioner Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. Mfirming, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302 , in rejecting Atkins' contention that he could not be sentenced to death because he is mentally retarded. Held: Executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Pp. 311-321. (a) A punishment is "excessive," and therefore prohibited by the Amendment, if it is not graduated and proportioned to the offense. E. g., Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 , 367. An excessiveness claim is judged by currently prevailing standards of decency. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 ,100-101. Proportionality review under such evolving standa...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »