Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982), was a search and seizure case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.The high court was asked to decide if a legal warrantless search of an automobile allows closed containers found in the vehicle (specifically, in the trunk) to be searched as well.
California, 453 U.S. 420 decision in July 1981, overruled by the United States v. Ross , 456 U.S. 798 decision in June 1982. There have been 16 decisions which have simultaneously overruled more than one earlier decision; of these, three have simultaneously overruled four decisions each: the statutory law regarding habeas corpus decision Hensley v.
The motor vehicle exception was first established by the United States Supreme Court in 1925, in Carroll v. United States. [1] [2] The motor vehicle exception allows officers to search a vehicle without a search warrant if they have probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband is in the vehicle. [3]
Case name Citation Date decided Ristuccia v. Adams: 396 U.S. 1: 1969: Hagan v. Reagan: 396 U.S. 1: 1969: Spalding Laundry & Dry Cleaning Co. v. Dept. of Revenue
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) – The death penalty is unconstitutional for rape of an adult woman when the victim is not killed.; Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) – The death penalty is unconstitutional for a person who is a minor participant in a felony and does not kill, attempt to kill, or intend to kill.
Case name Citation Date decided United States v. Morrison (1976 case) 429 U.S. 1: 1976: United States v. Rose: 429 U.S. 5: 1976: United States v. Dieter
The district court ordered suppression of the evidence because of the unreasonableness of the delay, and the government appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, [1] holding that the search of the vehicles three days later was unreasonable under United States v. Ross (1982). [2]
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, [1] but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. [2]