Home
About This Site
Search Function
   This Site WWW   Go to Google
[UNIT FLAG]  American  Law  Sources  On-line
United States — Amicus Curiae Briefs
 
Reviewed 15 October 2013 E-mail: Administrator@LawSource.com

NOTE:—Experience has shown that maintaining a collection of links to amicus curiae briefs is impractical (for a small staff, at least). Briefs are numerous and transitory on the internet, and finding new links is inordinately time-consuming. Therefore, while the links on this page will be preserved for as long as they are viable, new links will not be added.
Here is a form that can be used to invoke the Google.com search engine in an effort to find posted briefs that were filed in a particular case or filed by a particular amicus curiae.

Keywords:  

Enter appropriate keywords (party names, usually) and click on the “Search” button. (Entering “amicus curiae” or “brief” is not necessary or helpful.) Prepending “ +” (with a leading space) to a term will force inclusion, or “ -” (with a leading space) will force exclusion, in the results. To search for a phrase, enclose it in double quotes ("boy scouts"), and prepend “ +” to common words in the phrase if necessary ("boy scouts +of america"). Use uppercase “OR” (without quotation marks) to separate exclusive-alternative terms ("boy scout" OR scouts).
The American Bar Association provides on-line copies of the briefs of parties in cases for the current term of the U.S. Supreme Court. See a page titled “A Brief Summary: Finding Briefs on the Web,” which provides links to numerous sources of briefs; it is on a site by Robert J. Ambrogi, a Massachusetts attorney. See links to archived briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court by the American Civil Liberties Union (starting in the 1994 term). See The Curiae Project at Yale Law School for briefs in selected U.S. Supreme Court cases. See a collection of government briefs (except in response to in forma pauperis petitions) filed by the solicitor general in cases in the U.S. Supreme Court.

This page provides links to on-line versions of amicus curiae briefs (along with selected pleadings and briefs by parties in some cases) that were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal appellate courts, and state courts (including U.S. district courts) in the United States — which are listed here in that order; see the table of court links, below. A collection of scanned U.S. Supreme Court briefs (ostensibly focused on cases raising constitutional-law issues), starting with the 1999-2000 term, can be found at the FindLaw (West Group) web site.

Cases are listed in descending docket-number order for each court; that is, the most recently filed case is first. The case name is linked to a report of the court’s decision if the report is freely available on the internet.

Note: For an exasperated jurist’s tart opinion on the abusive filing of amicus curiae briefs, see Posner, C.J., reaffirming denial of a motion for leave to file a brief in Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, No. 97-2120 (7th Cir. Sept. 16, 1997).
  • 1st Circuit
  • 2nd Circuit
  • 3rd Circuit
  • 4th Circuit
  • 5th Circuit
  • 6th Circuit
  • 7th Circuit
  • 8th Circuit
  • 9th Circuit
  • 10th Circuit
  • 11th Circuit
  • D.C. Circuit
  • Fed. Circuit
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming
  • District of Columbia
  • Puerto Rico

  • Monge v. California, No. 97-6146 (U.S. June 26, 1998)
    Decision: The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable in the capital-sentencing context [see Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981)], does not extend to noncapital-sentencing proceedings.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, No. 97-1252 (U.S. n.d.)
    Issue: Do the U.S. district courts have jurisdiction to address challenges to deportation proceedings prior to the entry of a final order of deportation?
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, No. 97-634 (U.S. June 15, 1998)
    Decision: State prisons fall squarely within the statutory definition of “public entity” in the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, since the definition includes “any . . . instrumentality of a State . . . or local government” [42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(B)]. State prisoners’ claims of unlawful disability discrimination are legally cognizable.
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, No. 97-581 (U.S. June 22, 1998)
    Decision: The exclusionary rule, which generally prohibits the introduction at a criminal trial of evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, does not apply in parole revocation hearings.
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights, No. 97-501, dismissed as improvidently granted (U.S. May 4, 1998)
    Issue:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, No. 97-300 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
    Decision: The restrictions on “second or successive” applications for federal habeas corpus relief found in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 106(b) (Apr. 24, 1996), do not apply to a claim for relief under the holding of Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from inflicting the penalty of death upon a prisoner who is insane” [id. at 410].
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Faragher v. Boca Raton, No. 97-282 (U.S. June 26, 1998)
    Decision:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Calderon v. Thompson, No. 97-215 (U.S. Apr. 29, 1998)
    Decision: 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 106(b) (Apr. 24, 1996), did not control the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to recall its mandate and grant a petition for habeas corpus relief that the court had previously denied (although that action was a “grave abuse of discretion” in the absence of evidence that otherwise a miscarriage of justice would occur).
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Texas v. United States, No. 97-29 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
    Decision:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Gray v. Maryland, No. 96-8653 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1998)
    Decision: The holding of Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) — to wit: in a joint trial of two defendants accused of the same crime, one’s confession naming and incriminating the other cannot be used at all, even with a limiting instruction — applies equally when the non-confessing joint defendant’s name has been deleted from the confession before it is offered into evidence.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Bousley v. Brooks, No. 96-8516 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
    Decision:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Buchanan v. Angelone, No. 96-8400 (U.S. Jan. 21, 1998)
    Decision: The Eighth Amendment does not require that a capital jury be instructed on the concept of mitigating evidence generally, or on particular statutory mitigating factors.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Lindh v. Murphy, No. 96-6298 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
    Decision: 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, § 104 cl. (3) (Apr. 24, 1996), does not govern habeas corpus applications in non-capital cases that were already pending when the Act was passed.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Insultherm, Inc. v. Tank Insulation International, Inc., No. 96-1899, cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 6, 1997)
    Issue: Is an antitrust counterclaim a compulsory claim in a patent infringement action? See 104 F.3d 83 (5th Cir. 19—)
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard, No. 96-1769 (U.S. Mar. 25, 1998)
    Decision: [1] The holding of Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981), is reaffirmed — pardon and commutation decisions have not traditionally been the business of courts; as such, they are rarely, if ever, appropriate subjects for judicial review. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated where, as here, the procedures in question do no more than confirm that the clemency and pardon power is committed, as is our tradition, to the authority of the executive. [2] Giving an inmate the option of voluntarily participating in an interview as part of the clemency process does not violate the inmate’s Fifth Amendment rights.
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., No. 96-1768 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
    Decision: [1] There is no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). [2] The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under that section, including the amount of damages.
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Election Commission v. Akins, No. 96-1690 (U.S. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Quality King Distributors v. L'Anza Research International, Inc., No. 96-1470 (U.S. Mar. 9, 1998)
    Decision: The first-sale doctrine of 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) applies to imported copies.
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • County of Sacramento v. Lewis, No. 96-1337 (U.S. May 26, 1998)
    Decision: A police officer does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment guaranty of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. In such circumstances, only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due-process violation.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • United States v. Scheffer, No. 96-1133 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1998)
    Decision: Military Rule of Evidence 707 [excluding polygraph evidence in all military trials] does not unconstitutionally abridge the right of accused members of the military to present a defense.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Miller v. Albright, No. 96-1060 (U.S. Apr. 22, 1998)
    Decision:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • State Oil Co. v. Khan, No. 96-871 (U.S. Nov. 4, 1997)
    Decision: Maximum resale price maintenance is not a per se violation of the Sherman Act.
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, No. 96-779 (U.S. May 18, 1998)
    Decision: A state-owned public television broadcaster’s program televising a candidates’ debate was a nonpublic forum from which the broadcaster could exclude an independent candidate in the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Green Party USA
  • Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway v. Taxman, No. 96-679, dismissed on motion of the parties (U.S. Dec. 2, 1997)
    Issue: Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, permit employers to take race into account for purposes other than remedying past discrimination?
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., No. 96-568 (U.S. Mar. 4, 1998)
    Decision:
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Agostini v. Felton, No. 96-552 (U.S. June 23, 1997)
    Decision:
  • National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs
  • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 96-511 (U.S. June 26, 1997)
    Appellees’ Brief (American Civil Liberties Union) • Transcript of Oral Argument
    Decision: The Communications Decency Act of 1996 [Pub. L. 104-104, § 501 et seq. (Feb. 8, 1996)] unconstitutionally limits the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of speech.

    Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 (U.S. June 26, 1997)
    Respondent’s Brief
    Decision: See Vacco v. Quill, No. 95-1858 (U.S. June 27, 1997), below.
  • United States
  • Vacco v. Quill, No. 95-1858 (U.S. June 27, 1997)
    Respondent’s Brief
    Decision: The New York statute prohibiting physician-assisted suicide is not unconstitutional as written. See also Washington v. Glucksberg, No. 96-110 (U.S. June 26, 1997), above (Washington statute is not unconstitutional).
  • ACLU / Gray Panthers / Hemlock Society et. al.
  • Agudath Israel of America | Copy 2
  • American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • American Geriatrics Society | Copy 2
  • American Hospital Association
  • American Life League
  • American Medical Student Association
  • American Suicide Foundation
  • Bioethicists — Professors, Lawyers, Medical Doctors
  • Choice in Dying
  • Coalition of Hospice Professionals
  • Compassion in Dying
  • Family Research Council | Copy 2
  • Gary Lee, M.D. et al. and Physicians for Compassionate Care
  • National Catholic Office for Persons With Disabilities
  • National Hospice Organization
  • National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent
  • Not Dead Yet / ADAPT | Copy 2
  • Professors of Bioethics Annas, Glantz, Mariner / Health Law Dept., Boston Univ. of Public Health | Copy 2
  • Professors of Law
  • Project on Death in America
  • State Legislators
  • Richard Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, Oakland County, Michigan
  • Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Institute of Public Affairs
  • United States
  • Julian Whitaker. M.D.
  • Maryland v. Wilson, No. 95-1268 (U.S. Feb, 19, 1997)
    Decision: An officer making a traffic stop may order passengers to get out of the car pending completion of the stop. The rule of Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977), applies to passengers as well as drivers.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Warner Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., No. 95-728, 520 U.S. 17 (1997)
    Decision: Because the Federal Circuit did not consider all of the requirements of the doctrine of equivalents as described by the Court in this case, particularly as related to prosecution history estoppel and the preservation of some meaning for each element in a claim, further proceedings are necessary.
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., No. 94-2003, 516 U.S. 233 (1996)
    Petition for Writ of CertiorariBrief in Opposition to PetitionPetitioner’s BriefRespondent’s BriefPetitioner’s Reply Brief
    Decision: Per curiam. The court being equally divided, the judgment in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), is affirmed. The Lotus 1-2-3 menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable “method of operation” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
  • American Committee for Interoperable Systems
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Computer Scientists
  • Copyright Law Professors
  • Digital Equipment Corp. et al.
  • Economics Professors and Scholars
  • League for Programming Freedom
  • Profs. Peter S. Menell and Dennis S. Karjala
  • Software Forum
  • Software Industry Coalition
  • Users Groups
  • Beadle v. City of Tampa, No. 94-1705 (U.S. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Board of Education of the Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grimet, No. 93-517, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)
    Decision: A statute creating a special school district by following village lines for a religious enclave, which was incorporated as a village to exclude all but the members of the sect, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, No. 91-744, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
    Decision:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Weiss v. United States, No. 90-8287, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 842 (1994)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, No. 88-1503, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)
    Decision: [1] The U.S. Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent’s wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. [2] The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the “substituted judgment” of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's.
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, No. 88-605, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)
    Decision:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp., No. 82-914, 465 U.S. 752 (1984)
    Decision:
  • Associates for Antitrust Analysis

  • New York Magazine v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, No. 97-9511 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Hyperlaw, Inc. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Matthew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Appellant’s Reply BriefAdditional Documents
    Issue: What is the extent of the copyright protection available to West Publishing Company with respect to the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeals that it publishes in the Supreme Court Reporter and the Federal Reporter Series? See also Oasis Publishing Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 96-2887 (8th Cir. n.d.), below.
  • American Association of Legal Publishers
  • Shweizer v. Trans Union Corp., No. 97-7542 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: Does a collection letter that allegedly simulates a telegram violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act?
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Russman v. Board of Education of Watervliet, No. 95-7756 (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Leblanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, No. 94-7103L (2nd Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Greidinger v. Davis, No. 92-1571 (4th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility

  • Ieyoub v. American Tobacco Company, No. 97-31222 (5th Cir.)
    Issue: Must contractual arbitration rights, being broadly favored by federal law, be enforced by state courts in an equally liberal manner?
  • Reinsurance Association of America et al.
  • Guerra v. Johnson, No. 95-20443 (5th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic, Southern Center for Human Rights, et al.
  • Mexico (United Mexican States)
  • Chavez v. Arte Publico Press, No. 93-2881 (5th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: Does a State waives its immunity to copyright and trademark suits under the Eleventh Amendment by voluntarily participating in the federal intellectual property system?
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association

  • Thomas v. United States, Nos. 94-6648, 94-6649 (6th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • American Civil Liberties Union et al.
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation
  • Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, No. 85-3435 (6th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists

  • ProCD v. Zeidenberg, No. 96-1139 (7th Cir. June 20, 1996)
    Decision: Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable).
  • American Committee for Interoperable Systems
  • Information Industry Association, American Medical Association, and Association of American Publishers
  • Software Publishers Association

  • Reliance National Indemnity Co. v. Jennings, No. 98-3215 (8th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: What is the effect of reinsurance on the amount of recoverable damages in a legal malpractice lawsuit?
  • Reinsurance Association of America
  • Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cover collection of dishonored checks? See also Charles v. Check Rite Ltd., Inc., No. 96-15995 (9th Cir. n.d.), below and Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., No. 97-4045 (10th Cir. n.d.), below (same issue).
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Oasis Publishing Co. v. West Publishing Co., No. 96-2887 (8th Cir. n.d.)
    Appellant’s BriefAppellee’s BriefOral Argument
    Issue: Does “star pagination” to a compilation of reported cases, without more, copy the arrangement of that compilation or otherwise infringe any copyright interest in that arrangement? See also Hyperlaw, Inc. v. West Publishing Co., No. 97-7910 (2nd Cir. n.d.), above.
  • Matthew Bender & Co., Inc.
  • United States

  • California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts, No. 97-56499 (9th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Bernstein v. Department of Commerce, No. 97-16686 (9th Cir. n.d.)
    Appellant’s BriefAppellee’s BriefOral ArgumentAdditional Briefs (Below) and Case Documents
    Issue: Do the Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. pts. 730–774, which control export of a variety of items, including computer source code that can be used to encrypt data, unconstitutionally infringe First Amendment rights, or violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or abridge the privileges and immunities of United States citizens guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, or violate the penumbral right of privacy guaranteed under the Constitution?
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science
  • Electronic Privacy Information Center
  • Law Professors
  • RSA Data Security, National Computer Security Association, et al.
  • Thomas Jefferson Center for Freedom of Expression
  • First State Insurance Company v. Hughes, No. CC97-1924 (B.A.P. 9th Cir.)
    Issue: May a bankruptcy court order that a defunct reinsurer’s trust, which was set up specifically for the benefit of its U.S. cedents, be turned over to Great Britain, where the local bankruptcy court may distribute the asset to all of the insolvent’s creditors?
  • Reinsurance Association of America
  • Charles v. Check Rite Ltd., Inc., No. 96-15995 (9th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: See Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.), above.
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • Santamaria v. Horsley, No. 95-16991 (9th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

  • Snow v. Jesse L. Riddle, P.C., No. 97-4045 (10th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: See Duffy v. Landberg, No. 97-1560 (8th Cir. n.d.), above.
  • Federal Trade Commission
  • United States v. Nafkha, No. 96-6298 (10th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

  • Cuban American Bar Association v. Christopher, No. 94-5138 (11th Cir. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Human Rights Watch

  • College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, No. 97-1246 (Fed. Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: Did Congress properly abrogate States’ immunity to patent suits under the Eleventh Amendment by a valid exercise of its Fourteenth Amendment powers?
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • In re Zurko, No. 96-1258 (Fed. Cir. n.d.)
    Issue: What is the standard of review applicable to United States Patent and Trademark Office fact-finding?
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association

  • State v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 1960927 (Ala. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • American Jewish Congress et al.

  • California decisions are available in Adobe Acrobat files or MS Word/WIN 6.0 (.DOC) files.

    People v. Gainey, No. S064917 (Cal. n.d.)
    Issue: Can a defendant charged as an habitual criminal attack the validity of his prior conviction, claiming that he was not properly advised of his rights before pleading guilty in the prior proceedings?
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • Alvarado v. Superior Court, No. S059827 (Cal. n.d.)
    Issue: Is a defendant’s right to confrontation violated by an order protecting the identity of witnesses in an organized crime case?
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • People v. Whitson, No. S057262 (Cal. Jan. 15, 1998)
    MS Word file: S057262.DOC
    Decision: In the defendant’s trial for vehicular second-degree murder of another driver and the defendant’s passenger, in a collision after his car ran through a red light and crashed into the other car at 75 miles an hour, the defendant’s pretrial statements to police officers were admissible because they had not been obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), when the questioning officer reasonably believed the suspect was competent to waive his rights.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • People v. Peevy, No. S056734 (Cal. May 7, 1998)
    MS Word file: S056734.DOC
    Decision: Statements obtained through intentional violations of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), can be introduced at trial for the purpose of impeaching the defendant’s testimony.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • In re Robbins, No. S048929 (Cal. Aug. 3, 1998)
    MS Word file: S048929.DOC
    Decision: Petition for habeas corpus relief is denied. Under the applicable policies and case law governing the filing of habeas corpus petitions in capital cases in a California court, whenever a habeas corpus petition is filed more than 90 days after the filing of the reply brief in the direct appeal, the petitioner has the burden of establishing the timeliness of the claims raised in the petition. “We issued an order to show cause in [this case] to analyze the timeliness issue and to explain, in the context of specific claims, how the timeliness rules are applied by our court.”
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
  • People v. Venegas, No. S044870 (Cal. May 11, 1998)
    MS Word file: S044870.DOC
    Decision: Admission of DNA evidence was prejudicial error because, in performing the DNA analysis, the FBI failed to comply with procedures recommended in 1992 by the National Research Council for determining the statistical probability of a random match. However, the prosecution’s failure to prove general scientific acceptance of the methodology used by the FBI in performing the DNA analysis was not prejudicial error.
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

  • In re Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General on Laws Related to Discrimination, No. 82,674, 632 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1994)
    Issue:
  • Florida AIDS Legal Defense and Education Fund

  • United States v. Riggs, No. 90-9108 (N.D. Ga. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Electronic Frontier Foundation

  • Baehr v. Miike, No. 20371 (Haw. n.d.)
    Appellant’s BriefAppellee’s BriefAppellant’s Reply Brief
    Issue: Does Hawaii’s marriage law violate individuals’ rights to privacy, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws insofar as Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1 limits marriage to couples consisting of one man and one woman?
    Appellant’s Supplemental BriefAppellee’s Supplemental BriefAppellant’s Supplemental Reply Brief
    Supplemental Issue: Does the constitutional amendment adopted Nov. 3, 1998, granting the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples (Haw. Const. art. 1, § 23) have any retrospective or prospective effect on the disposition of this appeal?
  • Felipe Abinsay, Jr., et al. … seven members of the Hawai'i House of RepresentativesBrief on Supplemental Issue
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii FoundationBrief on Supplemental Issue
  • American Friends Service Committee
  • Urie Bronfenbrenner et al. … eminent scholars and researchers of child and family issues who have been major contributors to the research and literature concerning family relationships and human development, including same-sex relationships, in the field of psychology
  • Andrew J. Cherlin et al. … distinguished researchers and scholars of marriage and the family in the field of sociology
  • Christian Legal Society et al.
  • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
  • Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., et al.
  • Hawaii Catholic ConferenceBrief on Supplemental Issue
  • Hawaii’s Future Today • Brief on Supplemental Issue
  • Independent Women’s Forum
  • Japanese American Citizen’s League of Honolulu
  • Madison Society of Hawai'i
  • Na Mamo O Hawai'i
  • National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
  • Rutherford Institute
  • State of Nebraska et al. … States of Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, and South Dakota; subsequently joined by the State of UtahBrief on Supplemental Issue … from which California withdrew

  • Donaldson v. United Community Insurance Company, No. 98-01187 (La. App.)
    Issue: Do an insured and a third-party plaintiff have a right to sue a reinsurer for liability claims owed by an insolvent insurer?
  • Reinsurance Association of America

  • Ruthardt v. Munich American Reinsurance Company, No. SJC-077022 (Mass.)
    Issue: Does Massachusetts law for insurance insolvencies recognize a reinsurer’s right to setoff?
  • Reinsurance Association of America

  • Transit Casualty Co. v. Lloyd’s of London, No. CV595-2CC (Mo. n.d.)
    Issue: Did a service-of-suit clause in a reinsurance agreement render ambiguous and justify narrowing a broad arbitration clause in the same contract?
  • Reinsurance Association of America

  • LaVecchia v. Munich Reinsurance Co., No. 99cv-757 (JAG) (D.N.J. n.d.)
    Issue: When a dispute over an issue such as reimbursement of certain defense expenses arises under a reinsurance contract containing a broad arbitration clause, must that dispute, like other issues, be submitted to and resolved by an arbitration panel?
  • Reinsurance Association of America

  • Becher v. Becher, No. — (N.Y. App. Div. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • Agudath Israel of America
  • Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the New York Assembly
  • Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Institute of Public Affairs
  • In re Ry R.-Y., No. — (N.Y. App. Div. n.d.)
    Issue:
  • National Center for Lesbian Rights

  • Simmons-Harris v. Goff, No. 97-1117 (Ohio n.d.)
    Issue: See also Gatton v. Goff, No. 96 APE 08-991 (Ohio App. n.d.), below (same case in court of appeals).
  • Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Institute of Public Affairs
  • Gatton v. Goff, No. 96 APE 08-991 (Ohio App. n.d.)
    Issue: See Simmons-Harris v. Goff, No. 97-1117 (Ohio n.d.), above.
  • Agudath Israel of America

  • Ravenel v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Texas, No. 3-94CV-2239H (N.D. Tex. 1995) Issue and Briefs: See Rice v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., No. 95-1206, 65 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 1995), above.


    In re H.S.H-K., 193 Wis. 2d 649, 533 N.W.2d 419 (1995)
    Issue:
  • National Center for Lesbian Rights

  • United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94-1564 (D.D.C. n.d.)
    ComplaintCompetitive Impact StatementJudgment
    Decision: The court endorses the consent decree concerning Microsoft Corporation’s unlawful and anticompetitive practices to maintain its monopoly position in the market for operating systems for use with personal computers?
  • Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati

  •  

     

     

     


    “The essence of legal research in two words . . . see ALSO!

    Copyright © 1995–2014 by LawSource, Inc. All rights reserved. Copying and use are restricted. See the copyright notice, statement of purpose, and DISCLAIMER on the Welcome to ALSO!  page. Citation formats generally follow The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (17th ed., Harvard L. Rev. Ass'n 2000). For a practical discussion based on the current edition of that guide, see Martin, Introduction to Basic Legal Citation (2013). See also a Wikipedia article.
    Revised 15 October 2013
    Send comments to Administrator@LawSource.com.

      LawSource.com Seal