OSTERNECK ET AL.

v.

ERNST & WHINNEY

Citator

Cited By (24 total)

• United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989)
  …at the majority’s approach was “overly mechanistic” and “contrary to the case-by-case determination of reasonable articulable suspicion based on all the facts.” Id., at 1426. [*7] We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), because of its serious implications for the enforcement of the federal narcotics laws. We now reverse. The Court of Appeals held that the DEA agents seized respondent when they grabbed him by the arm and moved him back onto the sidewalk. 83…
• Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1989)
  …held that “the government’s compelling need to assure railroad safety by controlling drug use among railway personnel outweighs the need to protect privacy interests.” Id., at 596. We granted the federal parties’ petition for a writ of certio-rari, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), to consider whether the regulations invalidated by the Court of Appeals violate the Fourth Amendment. We now reverse. II The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effec…
• Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1989)
  …ons of the District Court which indicated that the January 30, 1985, judgment' was final and appealable notwithstanding the pending motion for prejudgment interest. 825 F. 2d, at 1527-1528. Petitioners sought review here, and we granted certiorari, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals over whether a motion for prejudgment interest filed after the entry of judgment constitutes a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Cf. Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp., 785 F. 2d 720 (CA…