MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.

v.

DABIT

Citator

Cited By

• DAY v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (U.S. 2006)
  …349. Adhering to Jackson, and satisfied that the State’s concession of timeliness “was patently erroneous,” the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Day’s petition. 391 F. 3d, at 1192-1195.3 [*205] We granted certiorari sub nom. Day v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 1164 (2005), in view of the division among the Circuits on the question whether a district court may dismiss a federal habeas petition as untimely under AEDPA, despite the State’s failure to raise the one-year limitation in its answer to the petition or…
• Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006)
  …42-343, 605 S. E. 2d, at 24. Applying this standard, the court held that petitioner could not “overcome the forensic evidence against him to raise a reasonable inference of his own innocence.” Id., at 343, 605 S. E. 2d, at 24. We granted certiorari. 545 U. S. 1164 (2005). II “[Sjtate and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U. S. 303, 308 (1998); see also Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683, 689…
• United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (U.S. 2006)
  …e the postal inspectors “failed to present the affidavit — the only document in which the triggering conditions were listed” — to Grubbs or [*94] his wife, the “warrant was . . . inoperative, and the search was illegal.” Ibid. We granted certiorari. 545 U. S. 1164 (2005). II Before turning to the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the warrant at issue here ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, we address the antecedent question whether anticipatory search warrants are categorically unc…