Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States> ?p ?o. }
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States abstract "The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States thumbnail Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg?width=300.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink shaken-baby-syndrome.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11A674-SCt-order-1-20-12.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink supreme-court-upholds-w-virginia-voter-map.html.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink opinion-recap-hedging-on-one-person-one-vote.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 10-1115.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 10-1521.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 10-1540.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-1053.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-1179h9j3.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-1184_ap6c.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-208.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-38.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-391.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-713.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-74.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink 11-845.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink relatingtoorders.aspx?Term=11.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageExternalLink JeffersonvTennantMemOpOrd.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageID "33593049".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikiPageRevisionID "552959303".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States citation "565".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States citation "566".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States citation "567".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2011-10-31".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2011-11-07".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2011-12-12".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-01-20".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-01-23".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-02-21".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-05-29".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-06-25".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States datedecided "2012-09-25".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States enddate "2012-09-30".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "American Tradition Partnership, Inc., FKA Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Brian Coleman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Fayette, et al. v. Lorenzo Johnson".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Darin Ryburn, et al. v. George R. Huff, et al.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "David Bobby, Warden v. Archie Dixon".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden, v. Shirley Ree Smith".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "John E. Wetzel, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. James Lambert".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Marcus Hardy, Warden v. Irving L. Cross".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Marmet Health Care Center, Inc., et al. v. Clayton Brown et al.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Natalie E. Tennant, West Virginia Secretary of State, et al. v. Jefferson County Commission, et al.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Philip Parker, Warden v. David Eugene Matthews".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States fullcasename "Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Shannon Perez, et al".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States hasPhotoCollection 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied ", et seq.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied "U.S. Const. amend. I; Mont. Code Ann. §13–35–227".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied "U.S. Const. art. I, §2; W. Va. Code Ann. §1–2–3".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States lawsapplied "et seq.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "172800.0".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "25920.0".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "259200.0".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., No. 35494".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "Interim redistricting ordered, W.D. Tex.; stay granted, probable jurisdiction noted, 565 U.S. ___".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States priorhistory "Judgment for plaintiffs, Jefferson County v. Tennant, No. 2:11-cv-0989, S.D. W.Va. ; stay granted, sub nom. Tennant v. Jefferson County, 565 U.S. ___".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States source "official slip opinion".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 10-1115.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 10-1521.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 10-1540.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-1053.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-1179h9j3.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-1184_ap6c.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-208.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-38.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-391.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-713.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-74.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sourceurl 11-845.pdf.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States startdate "2011-10-03".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "--09-25".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "--11-01".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "In a case involving a state law prohibiting corporate expenditures that support or oppose a political candidate or party, the Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's 2011 holding in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana that the law did not violate the First Amendment. The Court's short opinion stated that "[t]here can be no serious doubt" that the issue had already been decided to the contrary by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 , which struck a similar federal law as unconstitutional. "Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case." Justice Breyer filed a dissent, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, writing that he disagreed with the holding in Citizens United. Even accepting that decision, however, Breyer did not believe it precluded a finding that Montana had a compelling state interest in limiting corporate political expenditures in light of the particular "history and political landscape in Montana."".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "Justice Breyer filed a dissent, which was joined by Ginsburg and Kagan.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's judgment that police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity for entering a private home without a warrant, finding that their belief that violence was imminent, and that a warrantless entry was appropriate, was reasonable under the circumstances. The police officers were questioning the mother of a student who had been rumored to be planning to shoot other students at school. The mother initially failed to answer the phone, hung up after she did, and after coming outside to speak to the officers, failed to ask them what the questioning was about, and immediately ran back inside when she was asked if there were any guns inside. Finding this behavior alarming, the officers followed her in. No guns were found, and the rumors about the student's intentions turned out to be false. The family sued the police, alleging under that their warrantless entry violated the Fourth Amendment. The District Court entered judgment for the officers, finding that their account of the incident was accurate and ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they reasonably believed that violence was imminent. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. Though it accepted the District Court's findings of fact, it instead found that the officers were objectively unreasonable in believing that anyone's safety was at risk, because in their view the mother merely exercised her legal right to end the questioning. In reversing, the Court criticized the Ninth Circuit for basing its ruling upon a changed version of the facts, as well as for apparently assuming that lawful conduct could not give rise to a legitimate concern that violence was imminent. The Court also stated that the Ninth Circuit failed to look at the totality of the officers' encounter with the mother, instead incorrectly analyzing each step in isolation. Finally, the Ninth Circuit failed to give proper consideration to the perspective of the officers at the scene as events were unfolding, instead viewing the case "with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit's setting aside of a state court criminal conviction for sexual assault, where the alleged victim had been declared an unavailable witness and her testimony from a previous mistrial was admitted. Because the state court's decision to admit the testimony was not an unreasonable application of the Court's Confrontation Clause jurisprudence, the Seventh Circuit's decision failed to give the state court the benefit of the doubt as required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Though she had testified willingly and was cross-examined at the first trial, which was declared a mistrial, the witness subsequently claimed to fear for her safety and went into hiding, failing to appear for the second trial. The prosecution made numerous and repeated attempts to locate her through her family and friends, and the state trial court, characterizing such efforts as "superhuman," consequently granted its motion to have her declared unavailable and her testimony from the first trial admitted. The defendant was convicted of one of the charges and after losing an appeal in state court, filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court. The Seventh Circuit ruled that the prosecution had not made the requisite good faith effort to locate the witness, describing particular steps that had not been taken. The Court considered these efforts unlikely to have made a difference, and "the Sixth Amendment does not require the prosecution to exhaust every avenue of inquiry, no matter how unpromising."".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "The Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit erred in setting aside a murder conviction in Ohio state court, because although the defendant's initial confession was given without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, his subsequent confession was voluntary and therefore admissible against him.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "The Court vacated a Florida state court judgment refusing to compel arbitration in a lawsuit involving claims brought against auditor KPMG LLP by investors who were defrauded by Bernie Madoff. The Court ruled that the state court erred in determining only that some, but not all, of the claims in the lawsuit were not subject to arbitration, because the Federal Arbitration Act does not permit courts to issue a blanket refusal to compel arbitration simply because some of the claims could be resolved by the court without arbitration.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States summary "The Court vacated and remanded a federal court's interim legislative redistricting in Texas, a state covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for which preclearance of redistricting by the state is required. Due to a significant increase in the state's population recorded in the 2010 census, the state had to redistrict, but in the District Court's view, could not obtain preclearance of its proposed plan in time for the 2012 elections. The District Court accordingly drew an interim district map itself. The Supreme Court found that the District Court's map was not deferential enough to the state's plan and policies, altering it without regard to whether those particular elements of the state's plan were legally flawed or had a reasonable probability of failing preclearance. Justice Thomas filed a concurrence, stating that he believed Texas could implement its redistricting plan regardless of its failure to obtain preclearance in time, because in his view, §5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States term "2011".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "Bobby v. Dixon".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "Cavazos v. Smith".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "Hardy v. Cross".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "KPMG LLP v. Cocchi".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "Perry v. Perez".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wikisource "Ryburn v. Huff".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States subject Category:Lists_of_2011_term_United_States_Supreme_Court_opinions.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States subject Category:United_States_Supreme_Court_per_curiam_opinions.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States comment "The Supreme Court of the United States handed down thirteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States label "2011 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States".
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sameAs m.0hgpygq.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sameAs Q4623267.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States sameAs Q4623267.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States wasDerivedFrom 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States?oldid=552959303.
- 2011_term_per_curiam_opinions_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States depiction Seal_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court.svg.