HURLEY ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; PARROTT V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; GOTZL V. CANTRELL (GOTZL); PHELPS V. RISON, WARDEN, ET AL.; LUM V. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, IN RE POLYAK, JONES V. UNTHANK ET AL.; SYROVATKA V. CALIFORNIA; MILLER V. MCRAE ET AL.; CARLISLE V. GRADICK ET AL.; BROWN V. BORGERT, WARDEN; SINDRAM V. SAXTON ET AL.; JOHNSON V. SPELLING-GOLDBERG PRODUCTIONS; VENTERS V. BASHELOR ET AL.; ATTWELL V. CLARK ET AL.; SMITH V. ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ET AL.; WRIGHT V. ILLINOIS; SMITH V. CITIZENS BANK OF MARYLAND; RANKEL V. TRACY ET AL.; GYORE V. O'CONNELL ET AL.; SINDRAM V. LORENZO ET AL.; LEWIS V. RUSSE ET AL.; KENEALY V. FRUEHAUF CORP. ET AL.; HOWELL V. DELAWARE; PACKER V. GARRETT, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ET AL.; STOUT V. SULLIVAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; HENDERSON V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAMSON V. UNITED STATES; LUSTGARDEN V. GUNTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; ATANASOFF V. ARIZONA; KENH QUANG PHAM V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; BETKA V. OREGON ET AL.; ANDERSON V. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE; EVANS V. UNITED STATES; MULVILLE V. NORWEST BANK DES MOINES, NA, ET AL.; MOSEANKO V. FRIEDT ET AL.; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; MITAN V. UNITED STATES; MARTIN V. JONES, WARDEN, ET AL.; RODRIGUEZ V. BLODGETT, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY, ET AL.; ARNETTE V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ESTES V. MCCOTTER ET AL.; LANE V. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JOHNSTON V. UNITED STATES; TAYLOR V. CITY OF NEW ALBANY ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied petitions for rehearing in thirty-four consolidated cases decided in 1993, involving various federal and state appellate matters concerning constitutional rights, administrative law, and criminal procedure. The Court's order affirmed its earlier decisions across diverse legal issues without issuing a new substantive opinion. This action concluded the appellate review process for the listed cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
506 U. S. 817; 506 U. S. 854; 506 U. S. 917; 506 U. S. 976; 506 U. S. 1022; 506 U. S. 1047; 506 U. S. 893; 506 U. S. 1002; 506 U. S. 958; 506 U. S. 961; 506 U. S. 977; 506 U. S. 988; 506 U. S. 978; No. 92-6011. No. 92-6017. No. 92-6020. No. 92-6022. No. 92-6023. No. 92-6041. No. 92-6076. No. 92-6099. No. 92-6121. No. 92-6125. No. 92-6126. No. 92-6139. No. 92-6155. No. 92-6161. No. 92-6165. No. 92-6216. No. 92-6218. No. 92-6234. No. 92-6242. No. 92-6244. No. 92-6300. No. 92-6317. No. 92-6328. No. 92-6336. No. 92-6420. No. 92-6505. No. 92-6542. No. 92-6545.
506 U. S. 978; 506 U. S. 1005;
506 U. S. 1036; 506 U. S. 1007; 506 U. S. 1007; 506 U. S. 1008; 506 U. S. 1008;
506 U. S. 1057; 506 U. S. 991; 506 U. S. 1025; 506 U. S. 1025; 506 U. S. 1058; 506 U. S. 1059; 506 U. S. 1061; 506 U. S. 1062; 506 U. S. 1063; No. 92-6557. No. 92-6608. No. 92-6686. No. 92-6696. 506 U. S. 1063; 506 U. S. 1065; 506 U. S. 1068; and 506 U. S. 1085. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (57 total)
- Smith v. McCarthy, 506 U.S. 1004 (U.S. 1992)
- Smith v. Citizens Bank of Md., 506 U.S. 1004 (U.S. 1992)
- Taylor v. City of New Albany, 506 U.S. 1085 (U.S. 1993)
- Huff v. Wilcox Cnty. Adm'r, 506 U.S. 1085 (U.S. 1993)
- Church v. United States, 506 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 1993)
- Galford v. Massachusetts, 506 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 1993)
- Ruiz v. United States, 506 U.S. 1068 (U.S. 1993)
- McCray v. Texas, 506 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 1992)
- Young v. United States, 506 U.S. 1068 (U.S. 1993)
- Int'l Paper Co. v. Grassi, 506 U.S. 917 (U.S. 1992)