Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query conspiracy returned 39 results.

	UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO [Syllabus] A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
	WHITFIELD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	BELL ATLANTIC CORP. V. TWOMBLY [Syllabus]
	BECK V. PRUPIS [Syllabus] Whether an employee who is terminated for both blowing the whistle on and refusing to participate in a pattern of predicated acts of racketeering forbidden by the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (""RICO""), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., may assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim, where he has been injured by an overt act in furtherance of the RICO conspiracy, which overt act is not, itself, a predicate act of racketeering (a question as to which the circuit courts of appeal are in direct conflict).
	UNITED STATES V. SHABANI, 115 S. CT. 382, 130 L. ED. 2D 225 (1994). [Syllabus]
	EDWARDS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 511 (1998) [Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	RUTLEDGE V. UNITED STATES., 517 U.S. 292 (1996). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. FELIX, 503 U.S. 378 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	COLUMBIA V. OMNI OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., 499 U.S. 365 (1991) [Syllabus]
	SUMMIT HEALTH, LTD. V. PINHAS, 500 U.S. 322 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BRAY V. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC, 113 S. CT. 753 (1993). [Syllabus]
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ [Syllabus] Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
	GALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	HADDLE V. GARRISON [Syllabus]
	N.O.W. V. SCHEIDLER, 510 U.S. 249 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CIPOLLONE V. LIGGETT GROUP, 505 U.S. 504 (1992). [Syllabus]
	SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC. [Syllabus] Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
	[Syllabus]
	NYNEX CORP. V. DISCON, INC. [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. VONN [Syllabus] A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
	CEDRIC KUSHNER PROMOTIONS, LTD. V. KING [Syllabus] The RICO provision forbidding "any person employed by or associated with any enterprise . . . to conduct or participate . . . in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity," 18 U. S. C. §1962(c), applies when a corporate employee unlawfully conducts the affairs of the corporation of which he is the sole owner-whether he conducts those affairs within the scope, or beyond the scope, of corporate authority.
	UNITED STATES V. KNIGHTS [Syllabus] The warrantless search of petitioner, supported by reasonable suspicion and authorized by a condition of probation, satisfied the Fourth Amendment.
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	HOLMES V. SECS. INVESTOR PROTECTION CORP., 503 U.S. 258 (1992). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LANIER, 520 U.S. 259 (1997). [Syllabus]
	RUHRGAS AG V. MARATHON OIL CO. [Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. DUNNIGAN, 507 U.S. 87 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MELENDEZ V. UNITED STATES, 117 S. CT. 383, 136 L. ED. 2D 301 (1996). [Syllabus]
	F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD. V. EMPAGRAN S.A. [Syllabus] (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
	CLEVELAND V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 1. Can alleged false statements or omissions in applications for state licenses be the basis for federal mail or wire fraud charges, on the theory that a license that has not yet been issued constitutes ""property"" of the State, of which the State is deprived when it issues the license? 2. Is materiality an element of the offense of mail fraud?"
	KIMBROUGH V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FELLERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?