HONIG, CALIFORNIA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

v.

DOE ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988)
  …were subsequently used; but as there is nothing in the record to show that any juror who sat on the trial was objectionable, we are unable to discover any grounds for reversal.” 717 P. 2d 117, 120 (1986) (citations omitted). We granted certiorari, 482 U. S. 926 (1987), to consider the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment implications of the trial court’s failure to remove Huling for cause and petitioner’s subsequent use of a peremptory challenge to strike Huling. We now affirm. In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S.…
• United States Dep't of Just. v. Julian, 486 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1988)
  …rns v. Bureau of Prisons, 256 U. S. App. D. C. 156, 804 F. 2d 701, rehearing en banc denied, 257 U. S. App. D. C. 30, 806 F. 2d 1122 (1986), cert. pending, No. 86-6550, and because it raises several important statutory issues, we granted certiorari, 482 U. S. 926 (1987), and we now affirm. The system of disclosure established by the FOIA is simple in theory. A federal agency must disclose agency records unless they may be withheld pursuant to one of the nine enumerated exemptions listed in § 552(b). See Uni…
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Commercial Off. Prods. Co., 486 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1988)
  …Judge McKay dissented from the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, arguing that the EEOC should prevail for the reasons offered by the First Circuit. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the First and the Tenth Circuits, 482 U. S. 926 (1987), and we now reverse. II A First and foremost, respondent defends the judgment of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the language of the statute unambiguously precludes the conclusion that the CCRD’s waiver of the deferral period “term…