RIVERA
v.
SISTRUNK, SUPERINTENDENT, CHARLOTTE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, ET AL.; SNELL V. MASSACHUSETTS; MOORE V. PARROTT, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GEORGIA, JASPER COUNTY, ET AL.; FRANKS V. THOMAS, WARDEN, ET AL.; LAI V. INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOLOGY CORP. ET AL.; HUGHES V. NORTH DAKOTA; MARTINEZ V. UNITED STATES; RONDEAU V. NEW HAMPSHIRE ET AL.; TIDWELL V. NORRIS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; KRATZER V. FIRST HEALTHCARE CORP. ET AL.; COLBERT V. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD ET AL.; MCDANIEL ET AL. V. UNITED STATES; LOZADA COLON V. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ET AL.; PEREZ V. UNITED STATES; HOLLANDER V. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.; SULLIVAN V. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION; BIERI V. UNITED STATES; GEBMAN V. PATAKI, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, ET AL.; DANIELS V. PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION; WOODS V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY; BAKER V. UNITED STATES; REED V. PHILLIPS, WARDEN; HATHAWAY ET UX. V. ESSEX COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL., IN RE WASHINGTON, HUMPHREY V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; AYELE V. SIMKINS INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.; MAZZARELLA V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; MELENDEZ V. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY ET AL.; BUCHANAN V. BIRNIE ET AL.; TAYLOR V. VEIGAS ET AL.; PRICE V. RYDER SYSTEM, INC., ET AL.; HANLEY V. CITY OF HOUSTON ET AL.; VIRAY V. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; PRUITT V. GEORGIA; TAYLOR V. DEES, WARDEN, ET AL.; PRAVDA V. CITY OF ALBANY, NEW YORK, ET AL.; SYVERTSON V. NORTH DAKOTA; PINK V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.; PARKER V. OKLAHOMA; CROMARTIE V. GEORGIA; COOK V. GEORGIA; VIRAY V. BENEFICIAL CALIFORNIA, INC.; DENNIS V. SCOTT, WARDEN; BASILIO V. CAMRAY DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. ET AL.; HAMPTON V. LOUISIANA; MATHIS V. RATELLE, WARDEN, ET AL.; TRUE V. UNITED STATES, IN RE PARKER, WALKER V. UNITED STATES; WHITE V. WILKINSON, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION; THURSTON V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ET AL.; RAULERSON V. UNITED STATES

U.S. | 2000-01-10
Nos. 98-9149; No. 98-9297; No. 98-9325; No. 98-9471; No. 98-9539; No. 98-9677; No. 98-9744; No. 98-9820; No. 98-9851; No. 98-9912; No. 98-10031; No. 99-2; No. 99-259; No. 99-311; No. 99-339; No. 99-379; No. 99-496; No. 99-569; No. 99-627; No. 99-5048; No. 99-5052; No. 99-5233; No. 99-5244; No. 99-5350; No. 99-5375; No. 99-5429; No. 99-5452; No. 99-5563; No. 99-5568; No. 99-5606; No. 99-5627; No. 99-5715; No. 99-5731; No. 99-5743; No. 99-5749; No. 99-5753; No. 99-5794; No. 99-5852; No. 99-5976; No. 99-6041; No. 99-6042; No. 99-6049; No. 99-6083; No. 99-6086; No. 99-6151; No. 99-6178; No. 99-6216; No. 99-6341; No. 99-6387; No. 99-6400; No. 99-6427; No. 99-6480
528 U.S. 1106 Supreme Court of the United States (2000)

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 Supreme Court document is a denial of petitions for rehearing in a collection of thirty-eight separate cases raising various constitutional and statutory claims, including challenges to criminal convictions, administrative decisions, and employment disputes. The Court affirmed its prior decisions in each case by denying all requests for reconsideration. No new legal principles were established in this order, which served to finalize the Court's earlier rulings across the diverse docket of cases.


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

Opinion of the Court

ante, p. 827; 527 U. S. 1010; ante, p. 831; ante, p. 836; ante, p. 985; ante, p. 846; ante, p. 850; ante, p. 854; ante, p. 856; No. 98-9912. No. 98-10031. No. 99-2. No. 99-259. No. 99-311. No. 99-339. No. 99-379. No. 99-496. No. 99-569. No. 99-627. No. 99-5048. No. 99-5052. No. 99-5233. No. 99-5244. No. 99-5350. No. 99-5375. No. 99-5429. No. 99-5452. No. 99-5563. No. 99-5568. No. 99-5606. No. 99-5627. No. 99-5715. No. 99-5731. ante, p. 860; ante, p. 866; ante, p. 963; ante, p. 1003; ante, p. 879; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 966; ante, p. 968; ante, p. 1005; ante, p. 1006; ante, p. 883; ante, p. 883; ante, p. 893; ante, p. 894; ante, p. 962; ante, p. 901; ante, p. 904; ante, p. 905; ante, p. 935; ante, p. 935; ante, p. 935; ante, p. 912; ante, p. 938; ante, p. 916; No. 99-5743. No. 99-5749. No. 99-5753. No. 99-5794. No. 99-5852. No. 99-5976. No. 99-6041. No. 99-6042. No. 99-6049. No. 99-6083. No. 99-6086. No. 99-6151. No. 99-6178. No. 99-6216. No. 99-6341. No. 99-6387. No. 99-6400. No. 99-6427. No. 99-6480. ante, p. 1006; ante, p. 953; ante, p. 953; ante, p. 954; ante, p. 940; ante, p. 972; ante, p. 974; ante, p. 974; ante, p. 974; ante, p. 975; ante, p. 975; ante, p. 1007; ante, p. 976; ante, p. 976; ante, p. 1018; ante, p. 980; ante, p. 1026; ante, p. 1010; and ante, p. 989. Petitions for rehearing denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw