PFAFF
v.
WELLS ELECTRONICS, INC.; SPRING V. WASHINGTON; ESCOBAR V. UNITED STATES; LOWE V. OKLAHOMA; BRADFORD V. THOMPSON, WARDEN, IN RE LOWE, IN RE LOWE, MATHIS V. ODEN ET AL.; ASHIEGBU V. KIM ET AL.; ASHIEGBU V. HERRON, OHIO BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ET AL.; LEGRANDE V. EASLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; EPLEY V. TEXAS, IN RE LOWE, ANDERSON V. GARNER, WARDEN; BROWN V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; EMANUEL ET AL., DBA SALVATION DISPOSAL & CONSTRUCTION CO. V. J. M. CONTAINER CORP.; ARMSTRONG V. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.; PERALES V. SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS ET AL.; DONNER V. DONNER, DECEASED; HANLON V. DUNBAR; BELLO, DBA NUCLEUS OIL CO. V. CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK ET AL.; BRANDT V. ORTHOPEDICS CONSULTANTS OF WASHINGTON ET AL.; SMITH-GREGG V. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ROJAS V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; LOWE V. MONARD, IN RE LOWE, IN RE LOWE, HENSLER V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; BUTLER V. GAMMICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA; ROTHEL V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, IN RE LOWE, ASHIEGBU V. DAMSCHRODER; BARBOUR V. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; DANIELS V. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ET AL.; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; SLAGEL V. SHELL OIL CO. ET AL.; CLARK V. UNITED STATES; LOWE V. OKLAHOMA; SINGLETON V. LEWIS ET AL.; DIAZ V. UNITED STATES; CORDLE V. SQUARE D CO. ET AL.; JENKINS V. GEORGIA; FAUSTINO RIVERA V. FLORIDA; PATTERSON V. SOUTH CAROLINA, IN RE LINCOLN, HILL V. TURPIN, WARDEN; BARNES V. GEORGIA; RAWLINS V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ET AL.; NADDI V. HILL, WARDEN, ET AL.; RICHARDSON V. HUFFMAN; JONES ET AL. V. TEXAS; HY THI NGUYEN V. DALTON, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; MOODY V. MOODY; CARROLL V. LOCAL 144 PENSION FUND ET AL.; HAGANS V. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IN RE SEDDENS, HARRIS V. PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; SIKORA V. BOHN; SIDLES V. STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; SCHWARZ V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; SCHWARZ V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ET AL.; SCHWARZ V. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; LERMA V. UNITED STATES; LANCELLOTTI V. UNITED STATES, IN RE EVERHART, SCHWARZ V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

U.S. | 1999-01-11
Nos. 97-1130; No. 97-1975; No. 97-8620; No. 97-8960; No. 97-8984; No. 97-9352; No. 97-9429; No. 97-9503; No. 97-9529; No. 97-9552; No. 97-9626; No. 97-9633; No. 97-9661; No. 97-9667; No. 97-9693; No. 98-9; No. 98-277; No. 98-386; No. 98-478; No. 98-497; No. 98-503; No. 98-573; No. 98-602; No. 98-5006; No. 98-5077; No. 98-5105; No. 98-5197; No. 98-5242; No. 98-5246; No. 98-5256; No. 98-5282; No. 98-5343; No. 98-5344; No. 98-5399; No. 98-5416; No. 98-5435; No. 98-5463; No. 98-5514; No. 98-5568; No. 98-5635; No. 98-5659; No. 98-5769; No. 98-5787; No. 98-5788; No. 98-5789; No. 98-5809; No. 98-5833; No. 98-5850; No. 98-5899; No. 98-5968; No. 98-6008; No. 98-6031; No. 98-6124; No. 98-6158; No. 98-6194; No. 98-6230; No. 98-6245; No. 98-6274; No. 98-6278; No. 98-6316; No. 98-6317; No. 98-6318; No. 98-6373; No. 98-6480; No. 98-6561; No. 98-6623
525 U.S. 1094 Supreme Court of the United States (1999)

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.

Synopsis

This document is a Supreme Court docket listing of petitions for rehearing that were denied on January 11, 1999, covering numerous cases across diverse areas of law including criminal justice, administrative law, employment, and civil disputes. The Court's brief order denies rehearing in all listed cases without further explanation or opinion. No substantive legal principle is established in this procedural order.


Headnotes

[1] A petition for rehearing may be denied.

[2] The denial of a petition for rehearing is a procedural ruling.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

ante, p. 55; ante, p. 821; ante, p. 829; ante, p. 832; ante, p. 833; ante, p. 807; ante, p. 808; ante, p. 855; ante, p. 857; ante, p. 858; ante, p. 929; ante, p. 863; ante, p. 808; ante, p. 865; No. 97-9693. No. 98-9. No. 98-277. No. 98-386. No. 98-478. No. 98-497. No. 98-503. No. 98-573. No. 98-602. No. 98-5006. No. 98-5077. No. 98-5105. No. 98-5197. No. 98-5242. No. 98-5246. No. 98-5256. No. 98-5282. No. 98-5343. No. 98-5344. No. 98-5399. No. 98-5416. No. 98-5435. No. 98-5463. No. 98-5514. No. 98-5568. No. 98-5635. ante, p. 867; ante, p. 867; ante, p. 879; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 1002; ante, p. 983; ante, p. 983; ante, p. 1019; ante, p. 983; ante, p. 880; ante, p. 885; ante, p. 808; ante, p. 808; ante, p. 894; ante, p. 894; ante, p. 895; ante, p. 808; ante, p. 899; ante, p. 900; ante, p. 903; ante, p. 904; ante, p. 905; ante, p. 899; ante, p. 934; ante, p. 935; ante, p. 913; No. 98-5659. No. 98-5769. No. 98-5787. No. 98-5788. No. 98-5789. No. 98-5809. No. 98-5833. No. 98-5850. No. 98-5899. No. 98-5968. No. 98-6008. No. 98-6031. No. 98-6124. No. 98-6158. No. 98-6194. No. 98-6230. No. 98-6245. No. 98-6274. No. 98-6278. No. 98-6316. No. 98-6317. No. 98-6318. No. 98-6373. No. 98-6480. No. 98-6561. No. 98-6623. ante, p. 937; ante, p. 968; ante, p. 968; ante, p. 968; ante, p. 807; ante, p. 969; ante, p. 969; ante, p. 970; ante, p. 970; ante, p. 984; ante, p. 1005; ante, p. 953; ante, p. 1021; ante, p. 973; ante, p. 986; ante, p. 946; ante, p. 1024; ante, p. 986; ante, p. 987; ante, p. 1025; ante, p. 1025; ante, p. 1025; ante, p. 988; ante, p. 1009; ante, p. 999; and ante, p. 1031. Petitions for rehearing denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw