Us Supreme Court Court February 2014 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.
United States Vs. Apel
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
United States v. Apel NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. APEL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 121038.Argued December 4, 2013Decided February 26, 2014 Vandenberg Air Force Base has been designated a closed base, meaning that civilians may not enter without express permission. The Air Force has granted an easement over two areas of the Base, with the result that two public highways traverse the Base. Adjacent to one of those highways is an area that the Government has designated for peaceful protests. The Base commander has enacted several restrictions to c...
Chadbourne and Parke Llp Vs. Troice
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-26-2014
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP v. TROICE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit No. 1279.Argued October 7, 2013Decided February 26, 2014[ 1 ] The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Litigation Act or Act) forbids the bringing of large securities class actions based upon the statutory or common law of any State in which the plaintiffs allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security,15 U. S. C. 78bb(f)(1). The Act defines...
Fernandez Vs. California
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Fernandez v. California NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district No. 127822.Argued November 13, 2013Decided February 25, 2014 Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. ...
Kaley Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Kaley v. United States NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus KALEY et vir v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit No. 12464.Argued October 16, 2013 Decided February 25, 2014 Title21 U. S. C. 853(e)(1) empowers courts to enter pre-trial restraining orders to preserve the availability of [forfeitable] property while criminal proceedings are pending. Such pre-trial asset restraints are constitutionally permissible whenever probable cause exists to think that a defendant has committed an offense permitting forfeiture and that the assets in disput...
Walden Vs. Fiore
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-25-2014
Walden v. Fiore NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U. S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus WALDEN v. FIORE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 12574.Argued November 4, 2013Decided February 25, 2014 Petitioner Walden, a Georgia police officer working as a deputized Drug Enforcement Administration agent at a Georgia airport, searched respondents and seized a large amount of cash. Respondents allege that after they returned to their Nevada residence, petitioner helped draft a false probable cause affidavit in support of the funds forfeiture and forwarded it to a United States Attorneys Office in Georgia. In the...
Hinton Vs. Alabama
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Feb-24-2014
Hinton v. Alabama SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY RAY HINTON v. ALABAMA on petition for writ of certiorari to the court of criminal appeals of alabama No. 136440Decided February 24, 2014 Per Curiam. In Strickland v. Washington,466 U. S. 668 (1984), we held that a criminal defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if his trial attorneys performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different absent the deficient act or omission. Id., at 687688, 694. Anthony Ray Hinton, an inmate on Alabamas death row, asks us to decide whether the Alabama courts correctly applied Strickland to his case. We conclude that they did not and hold that Hintons trial attorney rendered constitutionally deficient performance. We vacate the lower courts judgment and remand the case for reconsideration of whether the attorneys defi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›