top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 12

  • Writer: captcrisis
    captcrisis
  • Oct 12, 2023
  • 1 min read

United States v. Morrison, 429 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1976): After conviction based on marijuana found in car, the Circuit Court (in another case) created an exclusionary rule which was retrospective; defendant demanded a hearing which resulted in suppression of the evidence and vacating the conviction. Here, the Court holds that Double Jeopardy does not bar Government from appealing the suppression finding, because if the appeal is successful, it merely means the guilty verdict is reinstated.


Prunty v. Brooks, 528 U.S. 9 (decided October 12, 1999): one of several orders that day either imposing sanctions on compulsive filers of pro se certiorari motions or requiring them to pay full fees instead of proceeding in forma pauperis; Prunty himself was on his tenth filing, all frivolous; it is noted that all were on non-criminal matters


Patterson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 269 U.S. 1 (decided October 12, 1925): amendment of Interstate Commerce Commission rate regulation power specifically applying to rates of short vs. long hauls also applied to rates of through vs. aggregate hauls; through rate being higher than aggregate rates is per se unreasonable, just as is short haul rate being higher than long haul rate

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: January 23

United States v. Jones , 565 U.S. 400 (decided January 23, 2012): attaching a GPS device to suspected drug dealer’s vehicle (actually his wife’s) is a “search” of “effects” and therefore warrant neede

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 22

Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (decided January 22, 1973): balancing interests of the state vs. privacy interest of mother, invalidates Texas’s near-absolute ban on abortion (only exception was to save li

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: January 21

Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n , 558 U.S. 310 (decided January 21, 2010): Court disallows on First Amendment grounds any restrictions on use of general corporate or union funds to advocate

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page