SCHMIDT ET AL.
v.
UNITED STATES; REYES-HERNANDEZ V. UNITED STATES; CATERINA ET AL. V. UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.; HUERTAS LABOY ET AL. V. PUERTO RICO ET AL.; WILLIAMS V. CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY SYSTEMS; GONZALEZ V. MCDANIEL; RICHARDSON V. ALBERTSON'S, INC., ET AL.; MERCED-NIEVES V. UNITED STATES; SULLIVAN V. TEXAS; BAYRAMOGLU V. MADDOCK, WARDEN, ET AL.; MAGGIO V. NORM REEVES HONDA ET AL.; SONHOUSE V. NYNEX CORP. ET AL.; SCHEXNIDER V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; SEARS V. FLORIDA; EPHRAIM V. NEAL, WARDEN; LOFTEN V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; HOLLEMAN V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; VESSEY V. UTAH; FULLER V. SPRAGINS ET AL.; GALLO-CHAMORRO V. UNITED STATES; HUGHES V. DEEDS, WARDEN; TERRY V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; LAY V. CAIN, WARDEN; HILL V. UNITED STATES; COSEY V. LOUISIANA; WINFIELD V. UNITED STATES; BOATENG ET UX. V. INTER AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO ET AL.; JONES V. THOMPSON, WARDEN; MARTIN V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; FOSTER V. JONES, WARDEN; BUTLER V. CRAVEN, WARDEN; SMITH V. UNITED STATES; GRADY V. UNITED STATES; MYRICK V. HAWK SAWYER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.; SUROVIK V. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; WEEKS V. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; HANKS V. CALIFORNIA BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS; NAGY V. UNITED STATES, IN RE HARRIS, MALADY V. UNITED STATES; PADRO BURGOS V. UNITED STATES
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 involving various federal and state legal disputes, including criminal justice matters, administrative proceedings, and civil litigation. The Court's order affirmed its prior decisions in the underlying cases without issuing further opinion on the merits of the rehearing requests.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ante, p. 902; 532 U. S. 1065; 532 U. S. 1008; 532 U. S. 1066; ante, p. 917; 531 U. S. 1164; 531 U. S. 1197; ante, p. 931; 532 U. S. 1027; 532 U. S. 1028; 532 U. S. 1040; No. 00-8989. No. 00-9071. No. 00-9117. No. 00-9128. No. 00-9134. No. 00-9183. No. 00-9206. No. 00-9218. No. 00-9223. No. 00-9226. No. 00-9277. No. 00-9302. No. 00-9369. No. 00-9397. No. 00-9406. No. 00-9408. No. 00-9425. No. 00-9428. No. 00-9479. No. 00-9489. No. 00-9518. No. 00-9539. No. 00-9563. No. 00-9626. No. 00-9630. 532 U. S. 1040; 532 U. S. 1042; 532 U. S. 1054; 532 U. S. 1054; 532 U. S. 1055; 532 U. S. 1068; 532 U. S. 1029; 532 U. S. 1029; ante, p. 953; 532 U. S. 1042; 532 U. S. 1071; ante, p. 905; 532 U. S. 1032; ante, p. 907; 532 U. S. 1044; ante, p. 918; 532 U. S. 1056; ante, p. 918; ante, p. 920; 532 U. S. 1056; 532 U. S. 1057; 532 U. S. 1057; 532 U. S. 1057; ante, p. 935; 532 U. S. 1072; No. 00-9717. No. 00-9739. No. 00-9819. No. 00-9862. No. 00-9863. ante, p. 921; 532 U. S. 1074; ante, p. 902; ante, p. 910; and ante, p. 910. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (39 total)
- In re Oser, 532 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 2001)
- United States v. Arvizu, 532 U.S. 1065 (U.S. 2001)
- Corbitt v. O'Sullivan, 532 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 2001)
- Schapiro v. Schapiro, 531 U.S. 1164 (U.S. 2001)
- Reed v. Moore, 531 U.S. 1164 (U.S. 2001)
- Soltero v. Ingle, 532 U.S. 1068 (U.S. 2001)
- Montgomery v. Illinois, 532 U.S. 1068 (U.S. 2001)
- Shafer v. Williams, 531 U.S. 1197 (U.S. 2001)
- Irvin v. Mich. Parole Bd., 531 U.S. 1197 (U.S. 2001)
- City of Eldon v. Belk, 532 U.S. 1008 (U.S. 2001)