Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 1089

I N D E X 

ADEQUATE  STATE  GROUNDS  DOCTRINE.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  1.
 

ALABAMA.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  8.
 

APPEALABILITY  OF  DISCLOSURE  ORDERS.  See  Jurisdiction.
 

ARBITRATION.  See  Railway  Labor  Act.
 

ASSISTANCE  OF  COUNSEL.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  5,  6,  7,  8.
 

ATTORNEY-CLIENT  PRIVILEGE.  See  Jurisdiction.
 

BAILIFF’S  MISCONDUCT  AT  TRIAL.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  2.
 

BIPARTISAN  CAMPAIGN  REFORM  ACT  OF  2002.  See  Constitu­

tional  Law,  II. 

BROADCAST  OF  FEDERAL  TRIALS.  See  Stays. 

CALIFORNIA.  See  Stays. 

CAMPAIGN  SPENDING.  See  Constitutional  Law,  II. 

CAPITAL  MURDER.  See  Habeas  Corpus,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8. 

CASES  AND  CONTROVERSIES.  See  Constitutional  Law,  I. 

COLLATERAL-ORDER  DOCTRINE.  See  Jurisdiction. 

CONSTITUTIONAL  LAW. 

I.  Cases  and  Controversies. 

Mootness—Effect  of  underlying  state-court  cases  on  federal  case.— 
Where  respondents  ﬁled  a  federal  civil  rights  action—claiming  that  Illi­
nois’  failure  to  provide  a  speedy  hearing  under  a  state  law  permitting 
warrantless  seizure  of  personal  property  used  to  facilitate  a  drug  crime 
violated  Due  Process  Clause—and  parties  resolved  underlying  property 
disputes  in  their  respective  state-court  cases,  federal  case  is  moot.  Al­
varez v. Smith, p. 87. 

II.  Freedom  of  Speech. 

Bipartisan  Campaign  Reform  Act  of  2002—Restrictions  on  corporate 
independent expenditures—Disclaimer and notice requirements.—Title 2 
U. S. C.  § 441b’s  restrictions  on  corporate  independent  expenditures  for 

1243