JETT
v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; INGLE V. COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; KING V. GEORGIA; STEWART, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS V. SMITH; CATERINA ET AL. V. UNIFIED JUDICIAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.; GOELZ V. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE CO. ET AL.; HORN, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. V. BANKS; CLANTON V. GREENWOOD TRUST CO.; BLEDSOE V. NUCOR-YAMATO STEEL CO.; HAWORTH V. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; DUNN V. KEAN; MCLACHLAN, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY BUTSCHEK LIVING TRUST, ET AL. V. SIMON, AN INDIVIDUAL AND FORMER TRUSTEE OF THE NAVELLIER SERIES FUND, ET AL.; VARGAS V. JORGENSEN; HILTON V. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LIVINGSTON V. UNITED STATES; OLIVER V. KYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT HUNTINGDON; PELLEGRINO V. WEBER, WARDEN, ET AL.; JONES V. UNITED STATES; ZARRILLI V. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ET AL.; BLACK V. STEWART, WARDEN; RHODE V. GEORGIA; RICHARDSON V. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GREEN V. NEWELL ET AL.; SMITH V. UNITED STATES, IN RE HUBBARD, GIBBS V. SNYDER, WARDEN, ET AL.; TAYLOR V. REYNOLDS ET AL.; LUGO V. FLORIDA; REDIC V. MOSKOWITZ ET AL.; BEATON V. MOORE, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GONZALEZ LORA V. UNITED STATES; MILLER V. DORMIRE, SUPERINTENDENT, JEFFERSON CITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER; CASTILLE V. COMPLIANCE SOLUTIONS; REED V. OHIO, IN RE PETERSON, ENGEL V. PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.; DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES; MILANO V. NORTH CAROLINA; PFEIFFER-EL V. JACKSON, SUPERINTENDENT, BROWN CREEK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; TAYLOR V. CAMPBELL, COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL.; STEINBRECHER V. STEINBRECHER ET AL.; PRICE V. CRESTAR SECURITIES CORP. ET AL.; CARPENTER V. NORTH CAROLINA; BECKTEL V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT (MORISSETTE, REAL PARTY IN INTEREST); HAMM V. UNITED STATES; SHINGLETON V. OHIO
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.
This document is a Supreme Court orders list from August 26, 2002, denying petitions for rehearing in thirty-one consolidated cases involving diverse legal matters including corrections law, trusts, insurance, and federal employment disputes. The Court's action reflects its disposition of multiple petitions seeking reconsideration of previously decided cases.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
ante, p. 921; 534 U. S. 837; ante, p. 957; ante, p. 856; 535 U. S. 988; 535 U. S. 1035; ante, p. 266; 535 U. S. 1112; ante, p. 904; 535 U. S. 1113; ante, p. 940; ante, p. 941; 535 U. S. 1000; 535 U. S. 1021; 535 U. S. 977; 535 U. S. 1038; 535 U. S. 1038; No. 01-8718. No. 01-8719. No. 01-8860. No. 01-9104. No. 01-9126. No. 01-9153. No. 01-9360. No. 01-9481. No. 01-9482. No. 01-9506. No. 01-9555. No. 01-9613. No. 01-9626. No. 01-9658. No. 01-9672. No. 01-9713. No. 01-9774. No. 01-9783. No. 01-9839. No. 01-9842. No. 01-9864. No. 01-9886. No. 01-9898. No. 01-9906. No. 01-9922. No. 01-9949. No. 01-10060. 535 U. S. 979; 535 U. S. 1002; 535 U. S. 1080; ante, p. 925; 535 U. S. 1084; ante, p. 942; ante, p. 964; 535 U. S. 1033; ante, p. 907; ante, p. 908; ante, p. 909; ante, p. 926; ante, p. 927; 535 U. S. 1087; ante, p. 928; ante, p. 910; 535 U. S. 1089; ante, p. 938; ante, p. 946; 535 U. S. 1106; ante, p. 930; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 911; ante, p. 966; ante, p. 967; ante, p. 967; No. 01-10071. No. 01-10248. ante, p. 933. Petitions for rehearing denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hill v. Humphrey, 662 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2011)…d v. Stripling, 277 Ga. 403, 590 S.E. 2d 122 (2003) (appeal from denial of state habeas petition), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1070, 124 S.Ct. 2400, 158 L.Ed.2d 976 (2004); King v. State, 273 Ga. 258, 539 S.E. 2d 783 (2000) (direct appeal), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 982, 123 S.Ct. 17, 153 L.Ed.2d 880 (2002), the United States Supreme Court denied capital defendants’ certiorari petitions that made the same constitutional reasonable doubt challenge that Hill makes here. As King v. State illustrates, another avenue (c…
-
Hill v. Schofield, 608 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2010)…ied, 552 U.S. 1070, 128 S.Ct. 728, 169 L.Ed.2d 569 (2007); Head v. Stripling, 277 Ga. 403, 590 S.E. 2d 122 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1070, 124 S.Ct. 2400, 158 L.Ed.2d 976 (2004); King v. State, 273 Ga. 258, 539 S.E. 2d 783 (2000), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 982, 123 S.Ct. 17, 153 L.Ed.2d 880 (2002), the Supreme Court denied capital defendants’ certiorari petitions that made the same constitutional reasonable-doubt challenge that Hill makes here. If anything, this demonstrates that Atkins did not establish…
Authorities Cited (33 total)
- Haynes v. United States, 535 U.S. 979 (U.S. 2002)
- Perez-Hernandez v. United States, 535 U.S. 979 (U.S. 2002)
- Howard v. Moore, 534 U.S. 837 (U.S. 2001)
- Wooldridge v. Hamilton Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 535 U.S. 988 (U.S. 2002)
- Alves v. Matesanz, 535 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 2002)
- Peterson v. United States, 535 U.S. 1002 (U.S. 2002)
- In re Discipline of Frejlich, 535 U.S. 1033 (U.S. 2002)
- Griffin v. City of Opa Locka, 535 U.S. 1033 (U.S. 2002)
- Jamison v. Illinois, 535 U.S. 1080 (U.S. 2002)
- Harvey v. Idaho, 535 U.S. 1080 (U.S. 2002)