HIGH

v.

HEAD, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Zandford, 535 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2002)
  …on the market” theory of the statute’s coverage, the court held that without some “relationship to market integrity or investor understanding,” there is no violation of § 10(b). Id., at 563. We granted the SEC’s petition for a writ of certiorari, 534 U. S. 1015 (2001), to review the Court of Appeals’ construction of the phrase “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” Because the Court of Appeals ordered the complaint dismissed rather than remanding for reconsideration, we assume the alleg…
• Bd. OF Educ. OF Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 92 OF Pottawatomie Cnty. v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (U.S. 2002)
  …78. The Court of Appeals then held that because the School District failed to demonstrate such a problem existed among Tecumseh students participating in competitive extracurricular activities, the Policy was unconstitutional. We granted certiorari, 534 U. S. 1015 (2001), and now reverse. II The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Searches by public scho…
• Thompson v. Sec'y FOR THE Dep't OF Corr., 320 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …concluded that a stay of exhausted claims is the preferable course when facing mixed petitions after AEDPA, ultimately vests the district courts with discretion to decide the issue. Zarvela v. Artuz, 254 F. 3d 374, 380 (2d Cir.2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1015, 122 S.Ct 506, 151 L.Ed.2d 415 (2001). . This observation is no prediction of whether or not Thompson will be permitted to bring these claims later in a second or successive habeas petition. No such issue is before us. But we note that one unexha…