MCCARTHY, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

v.

BLAIR

Citator

Cited By

• California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (U.S. 1991)
  …that this seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of that illegal seizure. The California Supreme Court denied the State’s application for review. We granted certiorari. 498 U. S. 807 (1990). As this case comes to us, the only issue presented is whether, at the time he dropped the drugs, Hodari had been “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.1 If [*624] so, respondent argues, the drugs were the fruit of that seizure…
• Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991)
  …e court function,” id., at 702, the court also concluded that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding to NASCO the fees and litigation costs paid to its attorneys. Because of the importance of these issues, we granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 807 (1990). II Chambers maintains that 28 U. S. C. § 1927 and the various sanctioning provisions in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure8 reflect a legislative intent to displace the inherent [*43] power. At least, he argues that they obviate or forec…
• Estelle v. McGUIRE, 502 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1991)
  …do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider evidence for any other purpose.” App. 40-41. In this regard, we observe that the Ninth Circuit reached a similar result in Blair v. McCarthy, 881 F. 2d 602 (1989), cert. granted, 498 U. S. 807, vacated as moot and remanded, 498 U. S. 954 (1990). In that case, the Court of Appeals based its grant of habeas relief solely on a violation of state law that prejudiced the defendant. Blair v. McCarthy, supra, at 603-604. As our discussion above…