WHITE
v.
MERCADO ET AL.; WHITE V. CITY OF WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS, ET AL.; WADDLETON V. TEXAS; MURRAY V. THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; PERRY V. TEXAS; BOULDS V. THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; FLEMING V. FLORIDA; MOSLEY V. BOWDEN ET AL.; HARDING V. OSBORN, JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT OF VIRGINIA, 10TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT; LAWN V. TUCKER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; NEAL V. FLORIDA; GRAUBERGER V. DOOLEY, WARDEN; REED V. FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION; STRICKLAND V. RRR BOWIE, LLC; WHITMORE V. HILL ET AL., IN RE SCOTT, DUNN V. EDMONDS ET AL., IN RE HICKINGBOTTOM, GARZA V. KANSAS; DODD V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, BRUNSWICK COUNTY SCHOOLS; HAMPTON V. CAIN, WARDEN; JEWUSIAK V. SANDY KAYE CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC.; TRANCOS, INC. V. BALSAM; KULESA V. REX, IN RE FESSLER, SPEAR V. MONTANA ET AL.; LADEAIROUS V. SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA; VETETO V. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA ET AL.; JUDY V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.; LACHIRA V. SUTTON LAND LLC ET AL.; BOWEN V. BOWEN; SCHAD V. RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; COKE V. NEW YORK; GERHARTZ V. PUGH, WARDEN; LOMAX V. DAVIS, WARDEN, ET AL.; VONDAL V. FRINK, WARDEN, ET AL.; CHERER V. FRAZIER ET AL.; KENDRICK V. CAVANAUGH ET AL.; JOHNSON V. CALIFORNIA (TWO JUDGMENTS); FROST V. F & R REALTY TRUST ET AL.; PHILLIPS V. UNITED STATES ET AL.; BARGO V. UNITED STATES; CASWELL V. LAVALLEY, SUPERINTENDENT, CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DAVIS V. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE ET AL.; REYES V. THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; BIRDETTE V. SUPERIOR COURT OF GEORGIA, DOUGLAS COUNTY; HIMMELREICH V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS ET AL.; STURMAN V. UNITED STATES; D. M. V. NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES; HITCHCOCK V. TUCKER, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.; PARKER V. UNITED STATES; DANIELS V. JONES, WARDEN; VANN V. GILBERT ET AL.; SIMS V. PRESKA, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; LUELLEN V. UNITED STATES, IN RE ROSA, STATON V. REYNOLDS, WARDEN; BAEZ V. UNITED STATES, IN RE SINGLETON

U.S. | 2013-01-07
Nos. 11-1464; No. 11-1495; No. 11-10082; No. 11-10112; No. 11-10278; No. 11-10368; No. 11-10401; No. 11-10429; No. 11-10576; No. 11-10692; No. 11-10727; No. 11-10746; No. 11-10750; No. 11-10755; No. 11-10805; No. 11-10889; No. 11-10946; No. 11-10995; No. 11-11030; No. 11-11085; No. 11-11137; No. 12-180; No. 12-237; No. 12-252; No. 12-253; No. 12-395; No. 12-5057; No. 12-5108; No. 12-5276; No. 12-5310; No. 12-5392; No. 12-5534; No. 12-5588; No. 12-5687; No. 12-5783; No. 12-5784; No. 12-5807; No. 12-5809; No. 12-5828; No. 12-5886; No. 12-5900; No. 12-5931; No. 12-6011; No. 12-6068; No. 12-6072; No. 12-6091; No. 12-6113; No. 12-6164; No. 12-6166; No. 12-6221; No. 12-6231; No. 12-6247; No. 12-6256; No. 12-6290; No. 12-6301; No. 12-6330; No. 12-6457; No. 12-6518; No. 12-6633
568 U.S. 1115 Supreme Court of the United States (2013)

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.


Headnotes

[1] A petition for rehearing may be denied by the court.

[2] The court may deny multiple petitions for rehearing in a consolidated case.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

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

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

Opinion of the Court

ante, p. 822; ante, p. 824; No. 11-10082. No. 11-10112. No. 11-10278. No. 11-10368. No. 11-10401. No. 11-10429. No. 11-10576. No. 11-10692. No. 11-10727. No. 11-10746. No. 11-10750. No. 11-10755. No. 11-10805. No. 11-10889. No. 11-10946. No. 11-10995. No. 11-11030. No. 11-11085. No. 11-11137. No. 12-180. No. 12-237. No. 12-252. No. 12-253. No. 12-395. No. 12-5057. No. 12-5108. No. 12-5276. ante, p. 832; ante, p. 883; ante, p. 838; ante, p. 841; ante, p. 842; ante, p. 843; ante, p. 849; ante, p. 962; ante, p. 858; ante, p. 860; ante, p. 860; ante, p. 860; ante, p. 863; ante, p. 811; ante, p. 870; ante, p. 811; ante, p. 875; ante, p. 878; ante, p. 1026; ante, p. 978; ante, p. 979; ante, p. 979; ante, p. 977; ante, p. 999; ante, p. 892; ante, p. 895; ante, p. 904; No. 12-5310. No. 12-5392. No. 12-5534. No. 12-5588. No. 12-5687. No. 12-5783. No. 12-5784. No. 12-5807. No. 12-5809. No. 12-5828. No. 12-5886. No. 12-5900. No. 12-5931. No. 12-6011. No. 12-6068. No. 12-6072. No. 12-6091. No. 12-6113. No. 12-6164. No. 12-6166. No. 12-6221. No. 12-6231. No. 12-6247. No. 12-6256. No. 12-6290. ante, p. 906; ante, p. 910; ante, p. 945;. ante, p. 947; ante, p. 921; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 965; ante, p. 966; ante, p. 966; ante, p. 966; ante, p. 983; ante, p. 952; ante, p. 926; ante, p. 985; ante, p. 987; ante, p. 1000; ante, p. 987; ante, p. 987; ante, p. 957; ante, p. 988; ante, p. 988; ante, p. 969; ante, p. 1001; ante, p. 988; ante, p. 988; No. 12-6301. No. 12-6330. No. 12-6457. No. 12-6518. No. 12-6633. ante, p. 989; ante, p. 977; ante, p. 1002; ante, p. 994; and ante, p. 997. Petitions for rehearing denied.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw