Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/084-crawford-v-washington

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep541/usrep541036/usrep541036.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Michael Crawford stabbed a man who, he said, had tried to rape his wife Sylvia. At trial, Sylvia did not testify because of the state marital privilege, but prosecutors played her tape-recorded statement to police, which undercut his claim of self-defense. Under Ohio versus Roberts, an out-of-court statement could come in if it bore adequate indicia of reliability.

Justice Scalia, for the Court, overruled the Roberts approach. Reviewing the history of the Confrontation Clause, including the 1603 trial of Sir Walter Raleigh, he held that testimonial statements of a witness absent from trial are admissible only if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable, he wrote, is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice O'Connor, concurred only in the judgment. Courts have spent the years since defining what "testimonial" means.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) [as printed: Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980); Dissent (Chief Justice Rehnquist)] episode

- Woodsides v. State, 3 Miss. 655 (1837) at 664-665 [as printed: Woodsides v. State, 3 Miss. 655, 664-665 (1837); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988) at 1015 [as printed: Coy v. Iowa, 487 U. S. 1012, 1015 (1988); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Jardine, supra, at 520 at 520 [as printed: Jardine, supra, at 520; Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Hale, supra, at 306 at 306 [as printed: Hale, supra, at 306; Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Lord Morley’s Case, 6 How.St.Tr. 769 (H. L. 1666) at 770-771 [as printed: Lord Morley’s Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 769, 770-771 (H. L. 1666); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Hale, supra, at 585 at 585 [as printed: Hale, supra, at 585; Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Fenwick’s Case, 13 How.St.Tr. 537 (H. C. 1696) at 591-592 (Powys) [as printed: Fenwick’s Case, 13 How. St. Tr. 537, 591-592 (H. C. 1696) (Powys); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

(+34 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 204 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/084-crawford-v-washington

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/083-brady-v-maryland

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep373/usrep373083/usrep373083.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

John Brady and his companion Charles Boblit were convicted separately of a 1958 murder during a robbery in Maryland, and both were sentenced to death. Brady admitted taking part but said Boblit did the killing. Before trial, Brady's lawyer asked to see Boblit's statements. The prosecution handed over several but withheld one in which Boblit admitted strangling the victim himself.

Justice Douglas, for the Court, held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. Because the statement went to punishment, not guilt, Brady got a new sentencing hearing.

Justice White concurred, and Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Black, dissented in part. The "Brady obligation" now requires prosecutors in every criminal case to disclose favorable evidence, and failures to do so are a leading cause of overturned convictions.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F.2d 763 [as printed: United States ex rel. Thompson v. Dye, 221 F. 2d 763; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Third Circuit Court of Appeals — United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F.2d 815 [as printed: Third Circuit Court of Appeals — United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F. 2d 815; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 at 112 [as printed: Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 at 215-216 [as printed: Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U. S. 213, 215-216; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- 820. In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 at 269 [as printed: 820. In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 269; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] episode

- Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370 [as printed: Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 183 A. 2d 359; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Wheeler v. State, 42 Md. 563 at 570 [as printed: Wheeler v. State, 42 Md. 563, 570; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Bell v. State, 57 Md. 108 at 120 [as printed: Bell v. State, supra, at 120; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 [as printed: Williams v. New York, 337 U. S. 241; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] episode

- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 [as printed: Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Douglas)] (episode link pending)

(+7 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 31 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/083-brady-v-maryland

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/082-schmerber-v-california

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep384/usrep384757/usrep384757.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Armando Schmerber was injured when the car he was driving crashed in Los Angeles. At the hospital, a police officer who smelled liquor on his breath directed a doctor to draw a blood sample, over Schmerber's objection on the advice of his lawyer. The analysis showed intoxication, and he was convicted of drunk driving.

Justice Brennan, for a five-to-four majority, rejected each of his constitutional claims. The privilege against self-incrimination protects only testimonial or communicative evidence, not physical evidence like blood. Under the Fourth Amendment, the officer had probable cause, and because alcohol in the blood begins to disappear soon after drinking stops, there was no time to get a warrant. The test was performed reasonably, by a physician in a hospital.

Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Douglas, and Fortas dissented. Schmerber's testimonial line still governs, and its emergency reasoning was narrowed in Missouri versus McNeely in 2013.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 at 661 [as printed: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 661; Dissent (Mr. Justice Black)] episode

- Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 [as printed: Malloy v. Hogan, supra; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] episode

- 352 U. S. 432—see Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [as printed: 352 U. S. 432—see Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] episode

- Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 at 440 [as printed: Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 440; Dissent (Me. Justice Foetas)] (episode link pending)

- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 at 174, 177 [as printed: Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 174, 177; Dissent (Mr. Justice Black)] (episode link pending)

- Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 [as printed: Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 [as printed: Holt v. United States, 218 U. S. 245; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 [as printed: Boyd v. United States, supra; Dissent (Mr. Justice Black)] episode

- Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 at 562 [as printed: Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 562; Dissent (Mr. Justice Black)] (episode link pending)

- Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 [as printed: Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 at 392 [as printed: Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 392; Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Brennan)] episode

(+8 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 42 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/082-schmerber-v-california

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/081-citizens-to-preserve-overton-park-inc-v-volpe

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401402/usrep401402.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Overton Park was a 342-acre park in the middle of Memphis, with a zoo, a golf course, and old-growth forest. Federal law barred the Secretary of Transportation from approving highway funding through a public park unless there was no feasible and prudent alternative. Secretary John Volpe approved Interstate 40 through Overton Park without explaining why, and local citizens sued.

Justice Marshall, for the Court, held that the decision was subject to judicial review and laid out how courts should review agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court must conduct a thorough, probing, in-depth review, asking whether the decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors and whether there was a clear error of judgment, although the court may not substitute its judgment for the agency's. Litigation affidavits written after the fact were not enough.

Justices Black and Brennan wrote separately. Interstate 40 was never built through the park, and the zoo and forest remain today.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- City of Yonkers v. United States, 320 U.S. 685 (1944) [as printed: City of Yonkers v. United States, 320 U. S. 685 (1944); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Marshall)] (episode link pending)

- Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) at 281-282 [as printed: Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268, 281-282 (1969); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Marshall)] (episode link pending)

- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) at 168-169 [as printed: Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 168-169 (1962); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Marshall)] (episode link pending)

- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) [as printed: Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Marshall)] episode

Full list of 33 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/081-citizens-to-preserve-overton-park-inc-v-volpe

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/080-strickland-v-washington

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep466/usrep466668/usrep466668.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

David Washington committed three brutal murders in Florida in 1976, confessed, and pleaded guilty against his lawyer's advice. At sentencing, his lawyer, overwhelmed by hopelessness, did little to investigate or present mitigating evidence about his character or mental state. Washington was sentenced to death, and later argued he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel.

Justice O'Connor, for the Court, set out the two-part test used ever since. A defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense, meaning a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result would have been different. Courts must be highly deferential to strategic choices. Washington's claim failed.

Justice Brennan concurred in part. Justice Marshall dissented, calling the standard so malleable as to be useless. Washington was executed in 1984. Strickland claims are among the most frequently litigated in all of criminal law.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Washington v. State, 362 So.2d 658 (Fla. 1978) at 663-664 (quoting trial court findings) [as printed: Washington v. State, 362 So. 2d 658, 663-664 (Fla. 1978) (quoting trial court findings); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (1981) [as printed: Knight v. State, 394 So. 2d 997 (1981); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- Washington v. State, 397 So.2d 285 (1981) [as printed: Washington v. State, 397 So. 2d 285 (1981); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) [as printed: Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- 648. With the exception of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) [as printed: 648. With the exception of Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U. S. 335 (1980); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] episode

- Trapnell v. United States, 725 F.2d 149 (CA21983) at 151-152 [as printed: Trapnell v. United States, 725 F. 2d 149, 151-152 (CA21983); Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) [as printed: United States v. Cronic, supra; Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- Knight v. State, 394 So. 2 [as printed: Knight v. State, 394 So. 2; Opinion of the Court (Justice O’Connor)] (episode link pending)

- United States v. Decoster, 199 U.S.App.D.C. 359 at 454-457 (en banc) [as printed: United States v. Decoster, 199 U. S. App. D. C. 359, 454-457, 624 F. 2d 196, 291-294 (en banc); Dissent (Justice Marshall)] (episode link pending)

(+30 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 185 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/080-strickland-v-washington

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/079-gregg-v-georgia

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep428/usrep428153/usrep428153.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

In 1972, Furman versus Georgia had halted executions nationwide, with five justices finding the death penalty, as then administered, arbitrary and capricious. Thirty-five states rewrote their laws. Georgia's new statute split trials into a guilt phase and a sentencing phase, required the jury to find at least one aggravating circumstance, and provided automatic appeal. Troy Gregg was sentenced to death under it for robbing and murdering two men who had picked him up hitchhiking.

In a plurality opinion by Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, the Court held that the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution, and that Georgia's guided-discretion system answered the concerns of Furman. Four other justices agreed in the result.

Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented, each holding that capital punishment is always cruel and unusual. Executions resumed in January 1977. Gregg and its companion cases decided the same day built the framework of modern death-penalty law.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) [as printed: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] episode

- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) at 308 [as printed: Furman v. Georgia, supra, at 308; Dissent (Mr. Justice Marshall)] episode

- Brown v. State, 235 Ga. 644 (1975) at 647-650 [as printed: Brown v. State, 235 Ga. 644, 647-650, 220 S. E. 2d 922, 925-926 (1975); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending)

- Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879) at 136 (“[I]t is safe to affirm that punishments of torture . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment . . .”) [as printed: Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130, 136 (1879) (“[I]t is safe to affirm that punishments of torture . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by that amendment . . .”); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending)

- Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) at 373 [as printed: Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 373 (1910); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending)

- Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958) at 100 (plurality opinion) [as printed: 183. See Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100 (1958) (plurality opinion); Dissent (Mr. Justice Marshall)] (episode link pending)

- Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) [as printed: Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] episode

- Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) at 533 (plurality opinion) [as printed: Powell v. Texas, 392 U. S. 514, 533 (1968) (plurality opinion); Opinion of the Court (Mr. Justice Stewart)] (episode link pending)

(+31 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 236 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/079-gregg-v-georgia

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/078-loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo

Official text (slip opinion, Supreme Court of the United States): https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Federal law allows the National Marine Fisheries Service to require herring boats in the Atlantic to carry federal observers on board. A 2020 rule went further and required the boat owners to pay for the observers, at up to about seven hundred dollars a day. Family fishing companies in New Jersey and Rhode Island sued, arguing the statute gave the agency no such power. The lower courts deferred to the agency under Chevron.

Chief Justice Roberts, for a six-justice majority, overruled Chevron. The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency's reading simply because a statute is ambiguous. Prior cases decided under Chevron remain good law under statutory stare decisis.

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred, Gorsuch with a long history of precedent and when it should yield. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Sotomayor, and by Justice Jackson in the companion case, dissented, warning that courts would now make policy decisions belonging to experts. Listen to this one right after Chevron, number three in this series.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141 (1841) at 162 (Story, J.) [as printed: United States v. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141, 162 (1841) (Story, J.); Concurrence (Justice Gorsuch)] (episode link pending)

- Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497 (1840) at 515 [as printed: Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 497, 515 (1840); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] (episode link pending)

- Edwards’ Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206 (1827) at 210 [as printed: Edwards’ Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210 (1827); Dissent (Justice Kagan)] (episode link pending)

- National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140 (1920) at 145–146 [as printed: National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 145–146 (1920); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] (episode link pending)

- NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014) at 525 (first quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819); then quoting Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177) [as printed: NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 525 (2014) (first quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819); then quoting Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 177); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] episode

- United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760 (1878) at 763 [as printed: United States v. Moore, 95 U. S. 760, 763 (1878); Opinion of the Court (Chief Justice Roberts)] (episode link pending)

(+76 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 495 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/078-loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo

Got something to say to this podcast? Send a voicemail, and you might hear yourself on the next episode!

Burnham v. Super. Ct., 495 U.S. 604 (1990)

Full notes and cites: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/077-burnham-v-superior-court

Official text (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep495/usrep495604/usrep495604.pdf

Full text of the opinions, AI-narrated (Kokoro-82M, voice af_heart). Original introduction; opinion text is public domain. Not legal advice.

Dennis and Francie Burnham, married in West Virginia, lived in New Jersey until they separated. Francie moved to California with the children and filed for divorce there. When Dennis made a short business trip to Southern California and visited the children, he was handed a California court summons and a copy of the divorce petition.

The Court unanimously upheld California's jurisdiction over him, but without a majority rationale. Justice Scalia, for four justices, said jurisdiction based on physical presence, called tag jurisdiction, is valid because it was a firmly established, continuing tradition when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, and needs no minimum-contacts analysis. Justice Brennan, also for four, said it is valid because a visitor who avails himself of the state's benefits has enough contacts to make jurisdiction fair.

Justice White concurred in part, and Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment alone. The clash between history and fairness is the whole case.

Citations: reporter citations were shortened or left out of the audio; every citation is listed on the website.

Cases named aloud

- Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) [as printed: Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] episode

- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) [as printed: International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] episode

- Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203 (1888) at 204 [as printed: Roberts v. Dunsmuir, 75 Cal. 203, 204, 16 P. 782 (1888); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154 (1814) at 154-155 (suit brought against former resident of forum State based on contract entered into there) [as printed: Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154, 154-155 (1814) (suit brought against former resident of forum State based on contract entered into there); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228 (1881) at 233 (both defendants residents of forum State) [as printed: Savin v. Bond, 57 Md. 228, 233 (1881) (both defendants residents of forum State); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

- Smith v. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284 (1887) at 285 [as printed: Smith v. Gibson, 83 Ala. 284, 285, 3 So. 321 (1887); Opinion of the Court (Justice Scalia)] (episode link pending)

- Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544 (1893) at 550 (court ruled for plaintiff on grounds of estoppel because defendant had failed to raise timely objection to jurisdiction in a prior suit) [as printed: Baisley v. Baisley, 113 Mo. 544, 550, 21 S. W. 29, 30 (1893) (court ruled for plaintiff on grounds of estoppel because defendant had failed to raise timely objection to jurisdiction in a prior suit); Concurrence (Justice Brennan)] (episode link pending)

(+21 more named aloud; see the website)

Full list of 204 citations not read aloud: https://opinion-of-the-court.pages.dev/ep/077-burnham-v-superior-court