|
|
|
|
Federal & State Cases, Combined
FILE-NAME: MEGA
COVERAGE: May vary by court. Please refer to guide document for individual
courts for coverage information.
FREQUENCY: As received from the court
UPDATE-SCHEDULE: Updated regularly - Atypical update schedule/as received from the court
CONTENT-SUMMARY:
All available Federal and State case law. Includes U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal District Courts and State case law for all 50 States plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and other U.S. territories. Also includes specialty courts such as Military Appeals, Customs, Patents, Tax, Trade, Commerce, Veteran Appeals and Bankruptcy.
FORMER-NAMES:
Federal and State Caselaw
COMPLETE FILE:
1st Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases & Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
1st Circuit - US District Court Cases
2nd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
2nd Circuit - US District Court Cases
3rd Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
3rd Circuit - US District Court Cases
4th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
4th Circuit - US District Court Cases
5th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
5th Circuit - US District Court Cases
6th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
6th Circuit - US District Court Cases
7th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
7th Circuit - US District Court Cases
8th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
8th Circuit - US District Court Cases
9th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases & Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
9th Circuit - US District Court Cases
10th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
10th Circuit - US District Court Cases
11th Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
11th Circuit - US District Court Cases
AK Court of Appeals Cases from 1980
AK Supreme Court Cases from 1959
AL Court of Appeals Cases, 1911-69
AL Court of Civil Appeals Cases from 1969
AL Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1969
AL Supreme Court Cases from 1820
AR Court of Appeals Cases from 1979
AR Supreme Court Cases from 1837
Arizona Tax Court Cases
AZ Court of Appeals Cases from 1965
AZ Supreme Court Cases from 1866
CA Courts of Appeal Cases from 1905
CA Supreme Court Cases from 1850
CO Court of Appeals Cases from 1891
CO Supreme Court Cases from 1864
CT Court of Appeals Cases from 1983
CT Superior Court - Common Pleas Cases from 1935
CT Supreme Court Cases from 1764
DC Court of Appeals Cases from 1925
DC Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 2001
DE Court of Chancery Cases from 1814
DE Superior Court Cases from 1885
DE Supreme Court Cases from 1790
District of Columbia Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
District of Columbia Circuit - US District Court Cases
Federal Circuit - US Court of Appeals Cases
FL Courts of Appeal Cases from 1957
FL Supreme Court Cases from 1846
GA Court of Appeals Cases from 1907
GA Supreme Court Cases from 1846
GU Supreme Court Cases from 1996
HI Court of Appeals Cases from 1980
HI Supreme Court Cases from 1847
IA Court of Appeals Cases from 1977
IA Supreme Court Cases from 1839
ID Court of Appeals Cases from 1982
ID Supreme Court Cases from 1866
ID Unpublished Cases from 2009
IL Court of Appeals Cases from 1877
IL Court of Claims Cases from 1889
IL Supreme Court Cases from 1819
IN Appeals Court Cases from 1891
IN Supreme Court Cases from 1817
IN Unpublished Cases from 2009
Indiana Tax Court Cases
KS Court of Appeals Cases from 1895
KS Supreme Court Cases from 1858
KS Unpublished Cases from 2007
KY Court of Appeals Cases from 1976
KY Supreme Court Cases from 1785
KY Unpublished Cases from 2009
LA Court of Appeals Cases from 1881
LA Supreme Court Cases from 1809
LA Unpublished Cases from 2007
MA Court of Appeals Cases from 1972
MA Supreme Judicial Court Cases from 1768
MD Circuit Court Cases of Maryland from 2003
MD Court of Appeals of Maryland from 1658
MD Court of Special Appeals of Maryland from 1967
ME Communications Cases
MI Court of Appeals Cases from 1965
MI Supreme Court Cases from 1841
MN Appeals Court Published Cases from 1983
MN Appeals Court Unpublished Cases from 1987
MN Supreme Court Cases from 1861
MO Appeals Court Cases from 1876
MO Supreme Court from 1821
MS Court of Appeals Cases from 1995
MS Supreme Court Cases from 1818
MT Communications Cases
MT Supreme Court Cases from 1868
NC Business Court from 1996
NC Court of Appeals Cases from 1968
NC Supreme Court Cases from 1778
ND Appeals Court Cases from 1987
ND Supreme Court Cases from 1867
NE Court of Appeals Cases from 1992
NE Supreme Court Cases from 1871
NH Supreme Court Cases from 1816
NJ Chancery Court Cases 1830 - 1948
NJ Miscellaneous Cases 1923 - 1949
NJ Prerogative Court Cases 1831 - 1948
NJ Superior Court Cases from 1948
NJ Supreme Court Cases from 1821
NJ Supreme Court Cases (OLD) 1789 - 1948
NJ Tax Court Cases from 1979
NM Court of Appeals Cases from 1966
NM Supreme Court Cases from 1852
NM Unpublished Cases from 2007
Northern Mariana Islands Cases
NY Court of Appeals Cases from 1794
NY Lower Court Cases from 1851
NY Supreme Court Cases - Appellate Division from 1875
OH Courts of Appeals Cases from 1913
OH Miscellaneous Cases from 1823
OH Supreme Court Cases from 1821
OK Court of Appeals Cases from 1968
OK Court of Criminal Appeals from 1908
OK Supreme Court Cases from 1884
OR Courts of Appeals Cases from 1969
OR Supreme Court Cases from 1847
OR Tax Court Cases from 1962
PA Commonwealth Court Cases from 1971
PA County Decisions from 1918
PA Court of Judicial Discipline Cases from 1994
PA Superior Court from 1895
PA Supreme Court Cases from 1791
Philadelphia County Decisions from 1918
RI Communications Cases
RI Superior Court Decisions from 1980
RI Supreme Court Cases from 1828
SC Court of Appeals Cases from 1983
SC Supreme Court Cases from 1867
SC Unpublished Cases from 2007
SD Supreme Court Cases from 1867
TN Court of Appeals Cases from 1925
TN Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1967
TN Supreme Court Cases from 1791
TX Court of Appeals and Court of Civil Appeals Cases from 1892
TX Court of Criminal Appeals Cases from 1879
TX Supreme Court Cases from 1840
TX Unpublished Cases from 2007
U.S. Supreme Court Cases, Lawyers' Edition
US Bankruptcy Court Cases
US Board of Tax Appeals Cases
US Commerce Court Cases
US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
US Court of Customs & Patent Appeals Cases
US Court of Federal Claims, Claims Court & Court of Claims Cases
US Court of International Trade Cases
US Customs Court Cases
US Tax Court Cases
US Tax Court Memorandum Decisions
UT Court of Appeals Published Cases from 1987
UT Court of Appeals Unpublished Cases from 1998
UT Supreme Court Cases from 1861
VA Court of Appeals Cases from 1985
VA Supreme Court Cases from 1730
VI Communications Cases
VI Energy and Utility Cases
VI Superior & Territorial Cases from 1959
VI Supreme Court Cases from 2007
WA Court of Appeals Cases from 1969
WA Supreme Court Cases from 1854
WI Court of Appeals Cases from 1978
WI Supreme Court Cases from 1839
WV Supreme Court Cases from 1864
WY Communications Cases
WY Supreme Court Cases from 1870
SPECIAL-CHAR:
The DATE segment can be restricted using BEF, AFT or = commands.
DOC-DESCRIPTION:
Majority opinions, decisions, and orders with associated concurring and
dissenting opinions.
DISPLAY-SEQUENCE:
Reverse chronological order by date decided or date filed.
USE-TIPS:
Case Law Summaries - Concise information on case history, factual and legal issues, and outcome of the case.
Core Concepts/Search Advisor - Core Concepts identify key points of a case by closely tracking the court's language. Search Advisor can be used with Core Concepts to limit a search to case law that pertains to a particular topic.
CourtLink® - Retrieve detailed docket information from www.CourtLink.com.
Pagination - All LexisNexis case law is paginated.
Shepards® - Shepardize® for citation analysis, validation, and additional citing references.
*****************************************************************************
For Help with LEXIS caselaw, or any materials, call Customer Service toll-free
at 1-800-543-6862
*****************************************************************************
HIER-LOC:
Area of Law - By Topic/Class Actions/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Entertainment Law/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Federal Practice/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Financial Crisis Litigation/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Foreign Laws & Legal Sources/Guam/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Foreign Laws & Legal Sources/Northern Mariana Islands/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Foreign Laws & Legal Sources/Puerto Rico/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Foreign Laws & Legal Sources/Puerto Rico/Find Cases/English
Area of Law - By Topic/General Business/Search Analysis, Law Reviews & Journals/Combined States/Find Cases/By Court
Area of Law - By Topic/Health Care/Find Cases/Federal & State Combined
Area of Law - By Topic/Homeland Security/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Mass Torts and Procedure/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Mass Torts and Procedure/Research Experts/Research Expert Witnesses in:/Caselaw & Related Material
Area of Law - By Topic/Medical Malpractice/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Municipal Government/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Native American Law/Find Cases & Court Rules
Area of Law - By Topic/Personal Injury/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Privacy Law/Find Cases/Federal
Area of Law - By Topic/Products Liability & Toxic Torts/Find Cases
Area of Law - By Topic/Products Liability & Toxic Torts/Research Experts/Research Expert Witnesses in:/Caselaw & Related Material
Cases - U.S.
Cases - U.S./Combined State Court Cases/By Court
Cases - U.S./Find Cases
Expert Witness Analysis, Jury Verdicts & Settlements/Expert Witness Analysis/Research Expert Witnesses in:/Caselaw & Related Material
Federal Legal - U.S./Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Alabama/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Alaska/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Arizona/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Arkansas/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./California/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Colorado/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Combined States/Find Cases/By Court
States Legal - U.S./Connecticut/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Delaware/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./District of Columbia/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Florida/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Georgia/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Guam/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Hawaii/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Idaho/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Illinois/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Indiana/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Iowa/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Kansas/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Kentucky/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Louisiana/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Maine/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Maryland/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Massachusetts/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Michigan/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Minnesota/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Mississippi/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Missouri/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Montana/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Nebraska/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Nevada/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./New Hampshire/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./New Jersey/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./New Mexico/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./New York/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./North Carolina/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./North Dakota/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Northern Mariana Islands/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Ohio/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Oklahoma/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Oregon/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Pennsylvania/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Puerto Rico/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Puerto Rico/Find Cases/English
States Legal - U.S./Rhode Island/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./South Carolina/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./South Dakota/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Tennessee/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Texas/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Utah/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Vermont/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Virginia/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Washington/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./West Virginia/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Wisconsin/Find Cases
States Legal - U.S./Wyoming/Find Cases
SAMPLE-DOC:
All case law documents on the LEXIS service appear in the same format.
The following sample document is from the United States Supreme Court. Please
note that not all jurisdictions will use all segments. For example, some courts
will use a "Syllabus" and others will not. Even within a jurisdiction some cases
will not contain all segments. For example, many cases will not contain a
"Concur" segment.
LEVEL 1 - 2 OF 4 CASES
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,
PETITIONERS 91-744 v. ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL., ETC. ROBERT
P. CASEY, ET AL., ETC., PETITIONERS 91-902 v. PLANNED
PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA ET AL.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SE PA v. CASEY
Nos. 91-744, 91-902
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
112 S. Ct. 2791; 1992 U.S. LEXIS 4751; 120 L. Ed. 2d 674; 60
U.S.L.W. 4795; 92 Daily Journal DAR 8982; 6 Fla. Law W. Fed.
S 663
April 22, 1992, Argued
June 29, 1992, Decided *
* Together with No. 91-902, Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania,
et al. v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et
al., also on certiorari to the same court.
NOTICE: {*1}
The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of
the final published version.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Amended July 2, 1992.
PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT.
DISPOSITION: <=1> 947 F.2d 682: No. 91-902, affirmed; No. 91-744, affirmed in
part, reversed in part, and remanded.
SYLLABUS: At issue are five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act
of 1982: @ 3205, which requires that a woman seeking an abortion give her
informed consent prior to the procedure, and specifies that she be provided with
certain information at least 24 hours before the abortion is performed; @ 3206,
which mandates the informed consent of one parent for a minor to obtain an
abortion, but provides a judicial bypass procedure; @ 3209, which commands that,
unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a
statement indicating that she has notified her husband; @ 3203, which defines a
"medical emergency" that will {*2} excuse compliance with the foregoing
requirements; and @@ 3207(b), 3214(a), and 3214(f), which impose certain . . .
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE,
concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a
constitutionally protected "liberty" because (1) the Constitution says
absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American
society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. See, e. g., Ohio v. Akron
Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. , (SCALIA, J., concurring). The
Pennsylvania statute should be upheld in its entirety under the rational basis
test. Pp. 1-3.
JUDGES: O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., announced the judgment of the Court
and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A,
V-C, and VI, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect
{*23} to Part V-E, in which STEVENS, J., joined, and an opinion with respect
to Parts IV, V-B, and V-D. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part,
concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. REHNQUIST, C. J.,
filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in
which WHITE, SCALIA, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which REHNQUIST,
C. J., and WHITE and THOMAS, JJ., joined.
OPINIONBY: O'CONNOR; KENNEDY; SOUTER
OPINION: {**693} JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with
respect to Parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI, an opinion with respect to Part
V-E, in which JUSTICE STEVENS joins, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV,
V-B, and V-D.
I
Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our
holding that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her
pregnancy in its early stages, <=41> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), that
definition of liberty is still {*24} questioned. Joining the respondents as
amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last
decade, again asks us to overrule Roe. See Brief for Respondents 104-117; Brief
for United States as Amicus Curiae 8.
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .
regard its report as confidential unless it receives other evidence which causes
it to conclude that the facility receives {**738} State-appropriated
{*141} funds."
CONCURBY: STEVENS (In Part); BLACKMUN (In Part); REHNQUIST (In Part); SCALIA (In
Part)
DISSENTBY: STEVENS (In Part); BLACKMUN (In Part); REHNQUIST (In Part); SCALIA
(In Part)
DISSENT: JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The portions of the Court's opinion that I have joined are more important
than those with which I disagree. I shall therefore first comment on significant
areas of agreement, and then explain the limited character of my disagreement.
I
The Court is unquestionably correct in concluding that the doctrine of stare
decisis has controlling significance in a case of this kind, notwithstanding an
individual justice's concerns about the merits. n1 The central holding of
<=218> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has been a "part of our law" for
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .
justified as relevant to any "philosophic" or "social" argument, ante, at 30,
either favoring or disfavoring the abortion decision in a particular case. In
light of all of these facts, I conclude that the information requirements in @
3205(a)(1)(ii) and @@ 3205(a)(2)(i)-(iii) {*157} do not serve a useful
purpose and thus constitute an unnecessary -- and therefore undue -- burden on
the woman's constitutional liberty to decide to terminate her pregnancy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n7 U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the
United States 71 (111th ed. 1991).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Accordingly, while I disagree with Parts IV, V-B, and V-D of the joint
opinion, n8 I join the remainder of the Court's opinion.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
n8 Although I agree that a parental-consent requirement (with the appropriate
bypass) is constitutional, I do not join Part V-D of the joint opinion because
its approval of Pennsylvania's informed parental-consent requirement is based on
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and
dissenting in part.
I join parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI of the joint opinion {*158} of
JUSTICES O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, ante.
Three years ago, in <=255> Webster v. Reproductive Health Serv., 492 U.S.
490 (1989), four Members of this Court appeared poised to "cast into darkness
the hopes and visions of every woman in this country" who had come to believe
that the Constitution guaranteed her the right to reproductive choice.
<=256> Id., at 557 (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting). See <=257> id., at 499
(opinion of REHNQUIST, C.J.); <=258> id., at 532 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). All
that remained between {**745} the promise of Roe and the darkness of the
plurality was a single, flickering flame. Decisions since Webster gave little
reason to hope that this flame would cast much light. See, e.g., <=259> Ohio
v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 524 (1990) (opinion of
BLACKMUN, J.). But now, just when so many expected the darkness to fall, the
flame has grown bright.
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .
I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on this Court forever, and when I do step
down, the confirmation process for my successor well may focus on the issue
before us today. That, I regret, may be exactly where the choice between the two
worlds will be made.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE SCALIA, and JUSTICE
THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
The joint opinion, following its newly-minted variation on stare decisis,
retains the outer shell of <=310> Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), {*194}
but beats a wholesale retreat from the substance of that case. We believe that
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .
IV
For the reasons stated, we therefore would hold that each of the challenged
provisions of the Pennsylvania statute is consistent with the Constitution. It
bears emphasis that our conclusion in this regard does not carry with it anyed
necessary approval of these regulations. Our task is, as always, to decide only
whether the challenged provisions {*257} of a law comport with the United
States Constitution. If, as we believe, these do, their wisdom as a matter ofly
public policy is for the people of Pennsylvania to decide.
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE
THOMAS join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
My views on this matter are unchanged from those I set forth in my separate
opinions in <=454> Webster v. Reproductive {**782} Health Services, 492
U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring inseparate
judgment), and <=455> Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S.
502, 520 (1990) (Akron II) (SCALIA, J., concurring). The States may, if they
wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to
do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be
wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to
do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be
. . . [ TEXT OMITTED ] . . .
It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to
think that an issue of the {**797} sort they both involved -- an issue
involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be "speedily and
finally settled" by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his
inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See
Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10,
p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for
the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the {*296}
political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction
of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid
national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely
prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do
neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
|
|
