Respondent's death sentence was affirmed as respondent's counsel's performance could not be deemed unreasonable, and even if such was the case, respondent suffered insufficient prejudice to warrant setting aside his death sentence.

The judgment of the district court as to the doctor's intervention was reversed, and the doctor's complaint in intervention was dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Judgment vacated; case remanded. 6-3 decision, 3 dissents.

The judgment suppressing evidence from a cell phone was affirmed. The judgment affirming the conviction was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Unanimous Decision; 1 Concurrence.

The Supreme Court reversed the true findings on the street gang enhancements, otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction, and remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision, finding that municipal corporations were persons who could be sued under the statute when execution of an official government policy or custom inflicted the constitutional violation, but municipal corporations could not be liable under a respondeat superior theory. Petitioners' claims involved an official policy and required reversal.

Three cases were reversed and one was affirmed.

The Court vacated the judgment reversing the dismissal and remanded the matter for trial with instructions that the employee was entitled to prove that the employer used his unlawful protests against it as a pretext to racial discrimination.

Judgment was reversed and remanded because respondents lacked standing to bring the action.

Judgment reversed; case remanded for further proceedings. 5-4 decision; 1 concurrence; 4 dissents.

The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals which allowed the testimony of respondent customers' tire expert because the court was permitted to ask reliability questions even though respondents' expert relied on experience-based observations. The standards of evidentiary reliability applied to all expert testimony.

Judgments in two cases reversed, judgment in third case affirmed; 5-4 decision, 1 concurrence, 1 dissent.

Judgment affirmed.

The Court vacated and reversed the appellate court's affirmance of a judgment granting respondent summary judgment. Where petitioners' expert evidence was reliable under federal rules, the evidence was admissible. The common law standard for determining reliability of scientific evidence was inapplicable where federal evidence rules superceded the common law. Publication or peer review of the experts' recalculation...

The judgment of personal jurisdiction over the corporation was reversed. Unanimous Decision; 1 Concurrence.

The judgment upholding defendant's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case was remanded because the court concluded that petitioner could have won a summary judgment motion without introducing any evidence disproving respondent's claim.

Judgment reversed; case remanded. 5-4 decision; 4 dissents.

Judgment of the court of appeals finding the Florida courts could not exercise jurisdiction over appellee was reversed because the exercise of jurisdiction by the Florida courts was not a violation of due process.

Reversed and remanded. 8-1 Decision; 1 Dissent.

The judgment granting petitioner a new trial restricted to the issue of punishment was affirmed where the suppression of evidence by the state violated petitioner's right to due process of law and required a retrial on the sentence. The Court held, however, that the appeals court had ruled the suppressed confession was inadmissible as to the issue of petitioner's guilt.

The judgment finding that the subscribers' complaint stated a claim was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit's judgment was reversed and remanded. 5-4 Decision; 1 concurrence; 1 dissent.

The judgment of the Second Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. 5-4 Decision; 1 Dissent.

The Court vacated the grant of partial summary judgment in petitioners' favor and remanded the case because the incorrect standard of review was applied. A clear and convincing standard of evidence was required to determine whether actual malice existed in respondents' libel suit.