CONNECTICUT

v.

GRAY

Citator

Cited By (16 total)

• Howlett v. Rose, 537 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
  …resented nor discussed in Elder. Elder was decided on the basis of Eleventh Amendment immunity. As our supreme court stated in Hill, relying on Ramah [*708] Navajo School Board v. Bureau of Revenue, 104 N.M. 302, 720 P. 2d 1243 (App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 423, 93 L.Ed.2d 373 (1986), sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity are distinct concepts. The eleventh amendment protects state government from the federal judiciary. Under the eleventh amendment, when a section 1983 action is…
• Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1997)
  …case, take a contrary view. See United States v. Pryba, 900 F. 2d 748, 760 (CA4), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 924 (1990); United States v. Kragness, 830 F. 2d 842, 860 (CA8 1987); United States v. Neapolitan, 791 F. 2d 489, 494-500 (CA7), cert. denied, 479 U. S. 940 (1986); United States v. Joseph, 781 F. 2d 549, 554 (CA6 1986); United States v. Adams, 759 F. 2d 1099, 1115-1116 (CA3), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 971 (1985); United States v. Tille, 729 F. 2d 615, 619 (CA9), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 845 (1984); United…
• Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1987)
  …a concern that obviously is not implicated on these facts. Nothing in Batson suggests that courts may examine the prosecutor’s motives whenever he has excluded peremptorily those whom the court may not remove for cause. See Brown v. North Carolina, 479 U. S. 940 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in denial of certiorari). Because the improper exclusion of even a single juror is sufficient to require resentencing in a capital case,3 and because the prosecutor is free to exclude panel members who express doub…