YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

v.

VERIZON'S BELL ATLANTIC CASH BALANCE PLAN ET AL.; MURDOCH V. CASTRO, WARDEN, ET AL.; SPRINGER V. PERRYMAN, JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT OF ALABAMA, RANDOLPH COUNTY, ET AL.; SELIG V. ROESHMAN; DOE ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.; IN RE FORD, WINN V. BUSS, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; TIMMONS V. ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; FAYIGA V. CASSAGNOL ET AL.; GRAY V. LARKINS, WARDEN; FITZGERALD V. KELLY, WARDEN; LLOYD V. NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; STUDY V. UNITED STATES; ELLISON V. DART, SHERIFF, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ET AL.; THORNTON V. VIRGINIA; ARMSTRONG V. CALIFORNIA; STRATTON V. TEXAS (FOUR JUDGMENTS); EICHER V. DIODATI; BARNES V. IMS MANAGEMENT, LLC, AS AGENT FOR METROPOLITAN GARDENS DEVELOPERS, LLP; WATSON V. FLORIDA; MANSEAU ET UX. V. CITY OF MIRAMAR, FLORIDA, ET AL.; PAGE V. FLORIDA; MARTIN V. VOLUNTEER AUTOMOTIVE; TIDWELL V. FLORIDA; COOPER V. CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS; TEAGUE V. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PFEIFERLING V. UNITED STATES; JACKSON V. HERNDON, WARDEN; JACKSON V. THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; DANIELS V. BALLY'S ATLANTIC CITY ET AL.; MONACELLI V. FORD MOTOR CO.; NELSON V. LEWIS ET AL.; BLANKENSHIP V. SIMON, JUDGE, COUNTY COURT OF FLORIDA; ESCAMBIA COUNTY, ET AL.; MCGOWAN V. MERRILL, WARDEN; ZABRISKIE V. FLORIDA; GLENN V. UNITED STATES; COCKERHAM V. UNITED STATES; GUZMAN V. UNITED STATES; HAYWOOD V. HILLMAN, CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.; HEARNS V. ARTUS, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; RUIZ MONTES V. UNITED STATES; T. G. V. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; BROWN V. UNITED STATES; IN RE MILES, ARMWOOD V. NEW JERSEY; IN RE WARD, CAWTHON V. UNITED STATES; DAVIS V. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON'S OFFICE

U.S. | 2011-07-25

Nos. 10-765; No. 10-809; No. 10-1126; No. 10-1142; No. 10-1206; No. 10-1284; No. 10-7867; No. 10-8349; No. 10-8784; No. 10-8897; No. 10-8991; No. 10-9015; No. 10-9043; No. 10-9058; No. 10-9083; No. 10-9089; No. 10-9159; No. 10-9232; No. 10-9319; No. 10-9337; No. 10-9351; No. 10-9365; No. 10-9373; No. 10-9378; No. 10-9430; No. 10-9439; No. 10-9444; No. 10-9462; No. 10-9493; No. 10-9542; No. 10-9602; No. 10-9612; No. 10-9623; No. 10-9645; No. 10-9660; No. 10-9736; No. 10-9798; No. 10-9818; No. 10-9819; No. 10-9890; No. 10-9925; No. 10-9930; No. 10-9952; No. 10-10047; No. 10-10084; No. 10-10206; No. 10-10324; No. 10-10571

564 U.S. 1055 Supreme Court of the United States (2011)

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

This is a Supreme Court docket order denying petitions for rehearing in 45 consolidated cases across diverse legal areas including employment law, criminal procedure, administrative law, and civil rights. The order provides no substantive analysis, consisting only of case citations and a blanket denial of rehearing petitions.

Facts & Procedural History

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Opinion of the Court

563 U. S. 1007; 563 U. S. 987; 563 U. S. 988; 563 U. S. 975; 563 U. S. 1022; 563 U. S. 986; 563 U. S. 990; 562 U. S. 1291; 563 U. S. 992; 563 U. S. 910; 563 U. S. 922; 563 U. S. 944; 563 U. S. 944; 563 U. S. 962; 563 U. S. 962; 563 U. S. 962; 563 U. S. 964; 563 U. S. 977; 563 U. S. 992; 563 U. S. 992; 563 U. S. 993; 563 U. S. 993; 563 U. S. 993; 563 U. S. 979; 563 U. S. 949; 563 U. S. 1002; 563 U. S. 949; 563 U. S. 994; 563 U. S. 995; 563 U. S. 1010; 563 U. S. 1011; 563 U. S. 1011; 563 U. S. 1011; 563 U. S. 980; 563 U. S. 996; 563 U. S. 967; 563 U. S. 981; 563 U. S. 981; 563 U. S. 1012; 563 U. S. 1012; 563 U. S. 999; 563 U. S. 1013; 563 U. S. 999; 563 U. S. 986; 563 U. S. 1026; 563 U. S. 1007; 563 U. S. 1039; and ante, p.

1028. Petitions for re-bearing denied. No. 10-9430. No. 10-9439. No. 10-9444. No. 10-9462. No. 10-9493. No. 10-9542. No. 10-9602. No. 10-9612. No. 10-9623. No. 10-9645. No. 10-9660. No. 10-9736. No. 10-9798. No. 10-9818. No. 10-9819. No. 10-9890. No. 10-9925. No. 10-9930. No. 10-9952. No. 10-10047. No. 10-10084. No. 10-10206. No. 10-10324. No. 10-10571.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited (56 total)

Warren v. Owens, 563 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 2011)
Kawashima et ux. v. Holder, 563 U.S. 1007 (U.S. 2011)
Cruz Lopez v. California, 563 U.S. 964 (U.S. 2011)
Lacy v. Arkansas, 563 U.S. 964 (U.S. 2011)
LeClaire v. Pallito, 563 U.S. 977 (U.S. 2011)
Mills v. Wisconsin, 563 U.S. 981 (U.S. 2011)
Grote v. United States, 563 U.S. 981 (U.S. 2011)
Clifton v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 563 U.S. 992 (U.S. 2011)
Barnes v. IMS Mgmt., LLC, 563 U.S. 992 (U.S. 2011)
Manseau et ux. v. City of Miramar, 563 U.S. 993 (U.S. 2011)

View all 56 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw