HOSPITAL DE LA CONCEPCION

v.

PUERTO RICO LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

Citator

Cited By (37 total)

• United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985)
  …rgument, the Court of Appeals stated that “the rule is clear in this Circuit that improper conduct on the part of opposing counsel should be met with an objection to the court, not a similarly improper response.” Id., at 570. We granted certiorari, 465 U. S. 1021 (1984). We now reverse. II The principal issue to be resolved is not whether the prosecutor’s response to defense counsel’s misconduct was appropriate, but whether it was “plain error” that a reviewing court could act on absent a timely objection.…
• Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984)
  …ainly no requirement that lawfully seized evidence be suppressed as well. See, e. g., Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U. S. 463, 482, n. 11 (1976); United States v. Offices Known As 50 State Distributing Co., 708 F. 2d 1371, 1376 (CA9 1983), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1021 (1984); United States v. Tamura, 694 F. 2d 591, 597 (CA9 1982); United States v. Holmes, 452 F. 2d 249, 259 (CA7 1971). Accord, Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 588 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) (“Essentially, the public-trial guarantee embodies a…
• Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1985)
  …ubstantial justification for the adoption of the plan with the greater discriminatory impact.” Id., at 1045. We granted certiorari to consider whether the type of impact at issue in this case is cognizable under §504 or its implementing regulations, 465 U. S. 1021 (1984), and we now reverse. II The first question the parties urge on the Court is whether proof of discriminatory animus is always required to establish a violation of §504 and its implementing regulations, or whether federal law also reaches act…