- 2004 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor
Concurrence
width=25px
Concurrence/dissent
white-space: nowrap |Total =
19
-
colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 19
colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 0
colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0
-
white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 4
colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Breyer (10)
colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg (7)
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | Stevens and Thomas dissented.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | O'Connor wrote one of two dissents from Kennedy's 5-4 opinion.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Kennedy, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Kennedy, Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Breyer (in part)
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Stevens, Souter, Breyer
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | O'Connor dissented from the Court's "per curiam" decision to dismiss "certiorari" as improvidently granted, arguing that the Court's dismissal was based on speculation as to what the state court might do. O'Connor preferred to remand the case with instructions to consider whether the decision of the ICJ was binding on American courts, and to what extent the Convention created enforceable rights that could not be forfeited through procedural default.
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Commerce Clause
width=20% valign=top | Rehnquist, Thomas (in part)
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Unanimous
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top | Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top |
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | U.S. Const. amend. V: Takings Clause
width=20% valign=top | Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Establishment Clause
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
-
align=right valign=top
valign=top | Establishment Clause
width=20% valign=top |
-
bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.