WOODALL
v.
UNITED STATES; MCCONE V. WOODHOUSE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WYOMING; RIGGS ET AL. V. SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH, ET AL.; ASKEY ET UX. V. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE; SCHAFLER V. FIELD ET AL.; FISHER ET UX. V. NEW YORK STATE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE ET AL.; MEADE V. DECISIONS OF THE ORPHANS COURT FOR ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ET AL.; SHARPENTER V. ILLINOIS; BESTOR V. UNITED STATES; YOUNG V. WEIL-MCLAIN; MCCARRIN V. UNITED STATES; MERRIWEATHER V. HOFBAUER, WARDEN, ET AL.; EVANS V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; SORRI V. BELL ATLANTIC; HOLDER V. UNITED STATES; THOMPSON V. COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; CHILTON V. VIRGINIA, IN RE MENDEZ, LANZY V. HARRISON, WARDEN, ET AL.; DUBOSE V. ANDREWS ET AL.; BURR V. COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; GROSS V. OHIO; GIVANS V. UNITED STATES; BRYSON ET AL. V. JOHNSTON, JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA, MECKLENBURG COUNTY, ET AL., IN RE LOVE, PAYNE V. COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JONES V. UNITED STATES; GREEN V. UNITED STATES; HALL V. FLORIDA, IN RE MILLER, NGHIEM V. AGHA ET AL.; RAMIREZ V. UNITED STATES; PALMER V. UNITED STATES JUDICIAL BRANCH ET AL., IN RE CALLAHAN, WAGENER V. VIRGINIA; DEDEAUX V. MISSISSIPPI; JONES V. MICHIGAN; LAWRENCE V. YOUNG, WARDEN, IN RE MCBRIDE, MORRIS V. COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA ET AL.; DAVIES V. GOMEZ, WARDEN; CONTRERAS V. COLLINS ET AL., IN RE CRANFORD, STEPHENS V. UNITED STATES; PAYNE V. COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; DUNCAN V. MIRO, WARDEN, ET AL.; RUIZ V. UNITED STATES; CALDWELL V. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; ATAMIAN V. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY; VEGA FLEITES V. UNITED STATES; CHENG V. CALIFORNIA; HOLT V. UNITED STATES; TAYLOR V. UNITED STATES; BROCK V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA; VALOIS V. UNITED STATES; MALDONADO V. UNITED STATES

U.S. | 2003-08-04
Nos. 01-7842; No. 01-10370; No. 02-1253; No. 02-1279; No. 02-1359; No. 02-1382; No. 02-1440; No. 02-1455; No. 02-1539; No. 02-5276; No. 02-5552; No. 02-6775; No. 02-7517; No. 02-8668; No. 02-8719; No. 02-9225; No. 02-9258; No. 02-9315; No. 02-9325; No. 02-9420; No. 02-9436; No. 02-9440; No. 02-9510; No. 02-9569; No. 02-9573; No. 02-9577; No. 02-9597; No. 02-9669; No. 02-9683; No. 02-9764; No. 02-9810; No. 02-9831; No. 02-9834; No. 02-9845; No. 02-9851; No. 02-9861; No. 02-9865; No. 02-9888; No. 02-9898; No. 02-9910; No. 02-9920; No. 02-9938; No. 02-9953; No. 02-9956; No. 02-10009; No. 02-10020; No. 02-10036; No. 02-10044; No. 02-10047; No. 02-10066; No. 02-10073; No. 02-10134; No. 02-10164; No. 02-10195; No. 02-10197; No. 02-10345
539 U.S. 975 Supreme Court of the United States (2003)

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

The Supreme Court denied petitions for rehearing in a consolidated docket of more than forty cases involving diverse legal matters including criminal justice, administrative law, taxation, and social security benefits. The Court's action affirmed its previous denials of certiorari or decisions on the merits across the various cases listed.


Headnotes

[1] A petition for rehearing is denied when the court finds no error of law or fact in its prior decision.

[2] Denial of a petition for rehearing signifies that the court has reviewed the arguments presented and found them insufficient to warrant reconsideration of the original ju…

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

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

Opinion of the Court

535 U. S. 1099; 537 U. S. 842; ante, p. 902; 538 U. S. 1013; 538 U. S. 1034; 538 U. S. 1057; ante, p. 903; 538 U. S. 1035; No. 02-1539. No. 02-5276. No. 02-5552. No. 02-6775. No. 02-7517. No. 02-8668. No. 02-8719. No. 02-9225. No. 02-9258. No. 02-9315. No. 02-9325. No. 02-9420. No. 02-9436. No. 02-9440. No. 02-9510. No. 02-9569. No. 02-9573. No. 02-9577. No. 02-9597. No. 02-9669. No. 02-9683. No. 02-9764. No. 02-9810. No. 02-9831. No. 02-9834. No. 02-9845. No. 02-9851. No. 02-9861. No. 02-9865. ante, p. 904; 537 U. S. 905; 537 U. S. 1195; 537 U. S. 1074; 538 U. S. 980; 538 U. S. 932; ante, p. 916; 538 U. S. 1003; 538 U. S. 1004; 538 U. S. 1012; 538 U. S. 1015; 538 U. S. 1036; 538 U. S. 1036; 538 U. S. 1037; 538 U. S. 992; 538 U. S. 1039; 538 U. S. 1030; 538 U. S. 1040; 538 U. S. 1007; 538 U. S. 1008; 538 U. S. 1059; 538 U. S. 1055; ante, p. 905; 538 U. S. 1023; 538 U. S. 1042; 538 U. S. 976; 538 U. S. 1062; ante, p. 906; ante, p. 906; No. 02-9888. No. 02-9898. No. 02-9910. No. 02-9920. No. 02-9938. No. 02-9953. No. 02-9956. No. 02-10009. No. 02-10020. No. 02-10036. No. 02-10044. No. 02-10047. No. 02-10066. No. 02-10073. No. 02-10134. No. 02-10164. No. 02-10195. No. 02-10197. No. 02-10345. 538 U. S. 1043; 538 U. S. 997; 538 U. S. 1044; 538 U. S. 1044; ante, p. 917; 538 U. S. 997; 538 U. S. 1044; ante, p. 918; 538 U. S. 1063; 538 U. S. 1046; 538 U. S. 1064; 538 U. S. 1064; 538 U. S. 1047; ante, p. 929; 538 U. S. 1049; 538 U. S. 1050; 538 U. S. 1051; 538 U. S. 1051; and 538 U. S. 1067. Petitions for rehearing denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited (75 total)

View all 75 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw