Miranda v. Arizona
384 U.S. 436 (1966) Cited 60,311 times 64 Legal AnalysesHolding that statements obtained by custodial interrogation of a criminal defendant without warning of constitutional rights are inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment
Dickerson v. United States
530 U.S. 428 (2000) Cited 2,290 times 18 Legal AnalysesHolding that “the protections announced in Miranda ” are “constitutionally required”
Chavez v. Martinez
538 U.S. 760 (2003) Cited 1,250 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights
Taylor v. Illinois
484 U.S. 400 (1988) Cited 2,288 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that the trial court's exclusion of a witness whose name was untimely disclosed to the government didn't violate the defendant's right to a complete defense
United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975) Cited 2,136 times 6 Legal AnalysesHolding that counsel's attempt to make testimonial use of work product materials at criminal trial waived protection
Estelle v. Smith
451 U.S. 454 (1981) Cited 1,564 times 30 Legal AnalysesHolding that a psychiatrist's testimony about the defendant's future dangerousness in a capital felony trial violated the defendant's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights where the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before his psychiatric examination
Kastigar v. United States
406 U.S. 441 (1972) Cited 2,163 times 22 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"
Mitchell v. United States
526 U.S. 314 (1999) Cited 740 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that a court may not draw an adverse inference from a defendant's silence when determining the facts of the offense at sentencing
Williams v. Florida
399 U.S. 78 (1970) Cited 1,364 times 3 Legal AnalysesHolding a conviction by a six-member jury did not violate the Sixth Amendment
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez
494 U.S. 259 (1990) Cited 674 times 9 Legal AnalysesHolding that the Fourth Amendment protects only "the people" of the United States and has no application to search-and-seizure challenges where the challenger is a non-citizen/non-resident alien with no voluntary attachment to the United States and the area searched is located outside of the United States
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 486,856 times 688 Legal AnalysesHolding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Section 2
Cal. Const. art. I § 2 Cited 476 timesRestricting prohibition to state-licensed “mental health providers”
Rule 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 times(a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)