id stringlengths 6 12 | year int64 1.96k 2k | url stringlengths 33 39 | opinionOfTheCourt stringlengths 23 243k | syllabus stringlengths 53 19.2k | issueArea float64 1 12 | decisionDirection float64 1 2 | partyWinning float64 0 1 | voteDistribution float64 0.5 1 | respondentType int64 0 4 | respondent float64 1 414 | __index_level_0__ int64 4 4.27k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1979_78-1845 | 1,979 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/78-1845 | MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the State of Illinois (State) from prosecuting for involuntary manslaughter the driver of an automobile involved in a fatal accident who previously has been convicted fo... |
As the result of an accident in which an automobile driven by respondent struck and killed two children, respondent was convicted for failing to reduce speed to avoid the accident in violation of an Illinois statute. Subsequently, based on the same accident, respondent was charged with involuntary manslaughter under... | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.555556 | 2 | 126 | 2,772 |
1985_85-546 | 1,985 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1985/85-546 | JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented by this case is whether respondent's suit against the United States is time-barred. In 1954, the Government sold respondent's interests in three Indian allotments to the United States Forest Service for inclusion in the Chippewa National Forest... |
Respondent inherited interests in three Indian allotments, title to which was held in trust by the United States. In 1954, the Government sold the allotments to the United States Forest Service despite the lack of express consent from every person who held an interest in the allotments. In 1967, respondent expresse... | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 170 | 3,627 |
1974_73-1424 | 1,974 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1424 | MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. We granted certiorari to decide whether a Court of Appeals has jurisdiction of an appeal by the United States from a pretrial order dismissing an indictment based on a legal ruling made by the District Court after an examination of records and an affidavit s... |
Petitioner, who had submitted a post-induction order claim for conscientious objector status to his local board, was later indicted for willful failure to report for and submit to induction into the Armed Forces. He filed a pretrial motion, accompanied by an affidavit, to dismiss the indictment on the ground that th... | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.888889 | 1 | 27 | 2,169 |
1957_130 | 1,957 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1957/130 | MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question before the Court is whether the proceeds of certain insurance policies on the life of the decedent, payable to named beneficiaries and irrevocably assigned by the insured, should be included in the estate of the decedent for the purposes of the f... |
At the age of 76 and without a medical examination, petitioners' decedent purchased at regular rates three single-premium life insurance policies on her own life, payable to named beneficiaries, and, from the same companies at the same time, as required by the companies, three single-premium nonrefundable life annuit... | 12 | 1 | 1 | 0.666667 | 1 | 369 | 216 |
1973_72-1264 | 1,973 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1973/72-1264 | MR. JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1965, the voters of Philadelphia approved a public education supplement to their city charter establishing the present structure of the Philadelphia Board of Education (the School Board or Board). The supplement, which appears as Art. XII of the city charter, v... |
The Mayor of Philadelphia is empowered by the city charter to appoint a Nominating Panel, which, in turn, submits to him nominees to fill vacancies on the School Board. The Panel consists of 13 members. The Mayor must appoint four members from the citizenry at large; each of the remaining nine must be the highest r... | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.555556 | 2 | 222 | 2,008 |
1974_73-1395 | 1,974 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-1395 | MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. Respondent George J. Wilson, Jr., was tried in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for converting union funds to his own use in violation of § 501(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 536, 29 U.S.C. § 501(c). The jury entered... |
The jury entered a guilty verdict against respondent for a federal offense, but on one of respondent's post-verdict motions, the District Court dismissed the indictment on the ground that the delay between the offense and the indictment prejudiced respondent's right to a fair trial. The Court of Appeals dismissed th... | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.777778 | 2 | 126 | 2,197 |
1983_82-786 | 1,983 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-786 | JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the issue whether, and to what extent, the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination applies to the business records of a sole proprietorship. I Respondent is the owner of several sole proprietorships. In late 1980, a grand jury,... |
During a federal grand jury investigation of corruption in the awarding of county and municipal contracts, subpoenas were served on respondent owner of sole proprietorships demanding production of certain business records of several of his companies. Respondent then filed a motion in Federal District Court seeking t... | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.666667 | 2 | 195 | 3,369 |
1986_86-322 | 1,986 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-322 | CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. In these two consolidated cases, we address the power of federal courts to require a losing party to pay the compensation of the winner's expert witnesses. In No. 86-322, respondent J. T. Gibbons, Inc., sued petitioner Crawford Fitting Co. and other petitioner... |
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1920 provides that a federal court "may tax" specified items, including witness fees, as costs against the losing party, and § 1821(b) states that a witness "shall be paid" a fee of $30 per day for court attendance. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides in part:
"Except when express provis... | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0.777778 | 3 | 122 | 3,685 |
1988_88-333 | 1,988 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-333 | "CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court. James Lewis Smith pleaded guilty to cha(...TRUNCATED) | "\n\nAn Alabama grand jury indicted respondent for burglary, rape, and sodomy, all related to a sing(...TRUNCATED) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.888889 | 2 | 100 | 3,912 |
1980_79-1380 | 1,980 | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1980/79-1380 | "JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. The issue in this case is whether Congress con(...TRUNCATED) | "\n\nThe Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which is part of the Social Security Act, provi(...TRUNCATED) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.555556 | 2 | 229 | 2,939 |
End of preview. Expand in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 2