IN RE WORKMAN; AND IN RE HORSLEY

Citator

Cited By

• Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (U.S. 2002)
  …provide notice to a federal inmate of its intention to forfeit property in which the inmate appears to have an interest,3 we granted certiorari to [*167] consider the adequacy of the FBI’s notice to petitioner of its intended forfeiture of the cash. 531 U. S. 1189 (2001). We now affirm the judgment below. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States, as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States, from depriving any person of property without “due proc…
• LEE v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2002)
  …f Iowa, dissented. In his view, Rules 24.09 and 24.10 did not supply state-law grounds “adequate” to preclude federal review in the particular circumstances of this case. Id., at 1041-1049. We granted Lee’s pro se petition for a writ of certiorari, 531 U. S. 1189 (2001), and appointed counsel, 532 U. S. 956 (2001). We now vacate the Court of Appeals judgment. h — I HH This Court will not take up a question of federal law presented in a case “if the decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground…
• NEW York v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 535 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2002)
  …l. (collectively New York) questioning FERC’s assertion of jurisdiction over unbundled retail transmissions and the petition of Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (Enron), questioning FERC’s refusal to assert jurisdiction over bundled retail transmissions. 531 U. S. 1189 (2001). We address these two questions separately. At the outset, however, we note that no petitioner questions the validity of the order insofar as it applies to wholesale transactions: The parties dispute only the proper scope of FERC’s jurisdict…