2014 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States (original) (raw)

574 (xsd:integer)
575 (xsd:integer)

dbp:datedecided

2014-10-06 (xsd:date)
2014-11-10 (xsd:date)
2014-11-17 (xsd:date)
2015-01-20 (xsd:date)
2015-03-30 (xsd:date)
2015-06-01 (xsd:date)

dbp:enddate

2015-10-04 (xsd:date)

dbp:fullcasename

Tracey L. Johnson, et al. v. City of Shelby, Mississippi (en)
Jeffrey Woods, Warden v. Cory Donald (en)
Jeremy Carroll v. Andrew Carman, et ux. (en)
Mark A. Christeson v. Don Roper, Warden (en)
Raul Lopez, Warden v. Martin Vernis Smith (en)
Stanley Taylor, et al. v. Karen Barkes, et al. (en)
Torrey Dale Grady v. North Carolina (en)
Patrick Glebe, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center v. Joshua James Frost (en)

dbp:lawsapplied

dbr:Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
; (en)
U.S. Const. amend. IV; (en)
U.S. Const. amend. VIII; (en)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8; (en)
U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV, (en)
U.S. const. amend. VI, XIV; (en)
U.S. Const. amend. IV; N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14–208.40 (en)

dbp:priorhistory

172800.0 (dbd:second)
259200.0 (dbd:second)
Motion for substitution of counsel denied, No. 04–CV–08004 ; summarily affirmed, No. 14-3389 ; execution stayed, [https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders%5C102814zr2.pdf 574 U.S. 968] (en)
Petition granted, sub nom. Donald v. Rapelje, 2012 WL 6047130 ; aff'd, 580 Fed. Appx. 277 (en)

dbp:source

FindLaw (en)
Cornell (en)
Justia (en)
official slip opinion (en)
Oyez (en)

dbp:sourceurl

dbp:startdate

2014-10-06 (xsd:date)

dbp:summary

0001-04-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
Third Circuit reversed. The Court held that there was no Supreme Court precedent under the Eighth Amendment that clearly establishes the right to adequate suicide prevention protocols for the incarcerated. The lower court instead determined that there was such a right based on its own precedent from only a single case, which would not have put anyone on notice of any possible constitutional violation. (en)
Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The lower court erred when it granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs for their failure to invoke 42 U.S.C. §1983 in their complaint. A complaint must only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and cannot be dismissed for an "imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted." There is also no heightened pleading standard for claims brought under section 1983 that would require that statute to be expressly invoked. (en)
Third Circuit reversed and remanded. It is not clearly established constitutional law that a police officer must begin at a residence's front door to employ the "knock and talk" exception to the warrant requirement. The lower court therefore erred in ruling that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, in a lawsuit alleging they unlawfully entered the plaintiffs' property in violation of the Fourth Amendment by going into their backyard and onto their deck without a warrant. (en)
Supreme Court of North Carolina vacated and remanded. The Court ruled that North Carolina's nonconsensual satellite-based monitoring program, which it had ordered a recidivist sex offender to submit to for the rest of his life, constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The state's characterization of the monitoring program as civil was irrelevant, and that the program collected information was clear from the basic function of monitoring and the language of the authorizing statute. The lower court was directed to determine upon remand whether it constituted an unreasonable search. (en)
Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. Under United States v. Cronic, a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are presumed to have been violated if he is denied counsel assistance during a critical stage of his trial. The lower court errored in granting federal habeas relief because Cronic and other established laws and cases by the Court have not yet specifically addressed the situation presented here: counsel is absent during testimony that only deals with the actions of the other co-defendants. (en)
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a Court of Appeals may only grant habeas corpus if a state's Supreme Court decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or was "based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding". The Ninth Circuit instead erred in granting relief by misapplying Herring v. United States, which involved a complete denial of a summation instead of, as in this case, a limitation on it. (en)
Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, if a state prisoner claims that a state court misapplied federal law, a federal court of appeals may only grant habeas relief if the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court", not as determined by that federal court's own precedent. (en)

dbp:term