Judgment vacated; case remanded. Unanimous Decision.

The court affirmed the denial of the motion to quash the subpoena because the President of the United States did not have an absolute, unqualified privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. Assertion of the general privilege of confidentiality could not prevail over a demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal case.

The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was affirmed, and the matter was remanded for resentencing. In the second case, the judgment was vacated and remanded for resentencing under the system set out by the Supreme Court.

Judgment affirmed; the visitation order in this case was an unconstitutional infringement on respondent's fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her two daughters.

The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. 5-3 Decision; 1 Dissent.

The court of appeals' decision was reversed.

Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and case remanded.

The judgment that the police officer were not entitled to qualified immunity was reversed. 9-0 decision.

Judgment reversed. 5-4 decision; 4 dissents.

The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court of Massachusetts and remanded the case for further proceedings. 5-4 Decision; 1 Concurring Opinion; 1 Dissent.

Reversed and remanded. 6-3 Decision; 1 Dissent.

The judgment was affirmed. Unanimous decision.

The court reversed a judgment ruling that after dismissal of an action pursuant to a settlement agreement, a district court had jurisdiction to decide an enforcement motion under its inherent supervisory power since the alleged breach of an agreement that produced the dismissal of an earlier federal suit was no basis for federal court jurisdiction over the agreement in dispute, and since the assertion of ancillary jurisdiction...

The judgment of the Court of Appeal was affirmed and the case remanded with directions that it be remanded in turn to the superior court for recalculation of attorney fees where the superior court's application of a contingent risk fee enhancement was not proper.

In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01 (Reorganization of the Civil Jury Instructions)Supreme Court of FloridaMarch 4, 2010, DecidedNo. SC09-284, No. SC09-296, No. SC09-299, No. SC09-300, No. SC09-301, No. SC09-302, No. SC09-...

The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and held that the facts showed petitioner was a private figure. The Court held that the state interest in compensating a private figure required a different rule and held that the states could define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injuries to a private individual. The case was remanded for...

The court affirmed that plaintiff's tort cause of action for wrongful discharge failed and that tort remedies were not available for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff 's claim for breach of an implied-in-fact contract promise to discharge only for cause.

The judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. The court held that the state could not constitutionally force a lawyer upon petitioner because he was literate, competent, and understanding, and voluntarily exercised his informed free will in waiving his right to the assistance of counsel.

The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeal and remanded to that court with directions to issue a writ of mandate vacating the trial court's discovery order and to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed; case remanded. 8-1 decision, 1 concurrence, 1 dissent.

The Court, holding that respondent's civil rights claim was cognizable only if petitioner's failure to train its police force reflected a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants, vacated the judgment of the court of appeals, and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether respondent should have had an opportunity to prove her case under the "deliberate indifference"...

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of conviction affirmed by the appeals court and held that the prosecutor's continual reminder to the jury that the petitioners failed to testify, inferring guilt, was not harmless error because the repeated comments affected petitioners' substantial rights and improperly influenced the jury to convict.

Order reversed.

The court granted mandamus relief for an order from respondent Superior Court, which compelled petitioner nonparty to produce documents, to serve a privilege log, and to serve responses, because the subpoena of petitioner's documents had failed to specifically identify petitioner's documents and instead, had merely described broad categories of petitioner's documents.