top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 12

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: November 9

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (decided November 9, 1993): Title VII claimant (“abusive work environment”) need not show that her psychological well-being was “seriously affected”; tota

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 8

Greene v. Fisher, 565 U.S. 34 (decided November 8, 2011): violation of “clearly established federal law” required for habeas does not include law established by Court in decision announced after state

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: November 7

Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (decided November 7, 2000): video poker licenses were not “property” so as to be predicate for prosecution under mail fraud statute (defendants had obtained lic

 
 
 

Comments


Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page