|
| Concurrence | width=25px | | Other |- | width=25px | | Dissent | width=25px | | Concurrence/dissent | white-space: nowrap |Total = | 30 |- | colspan=2 | Bench opinions = 28 | colspan=2 | Opinions relating to orders = 2 | colspan=2 | In-chambers opinions = 0 |- | white-space: nowrap colspan=2 valign=top | Unanimous decisions: 4 | colspan=2 valign=top | Most joined by: Souter, Breyer (11) | colspan=2 valign=top | Least joined by: O'Connor, Alito (2)〔O'Connor retired mid-term and Alito was confirmed as her replacement; of the justices that served for the complete term, Roberts and Scalia joined Stevens' opinions the least, with five each.〕 |} |} |} | 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 |Stevens joined O'Connor's 6-2 decision and filed a separate concurrence. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens also joined Scalia's unanimous opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Thomas |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens concurred in the judgment of Breyer's 8-justice opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Souter |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of two dissents. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Thomas filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Kennedy |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens dissented from Thomas' 7-2 decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens dissented from the Court's ''per curiam'' opinion. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Patents; antitrust | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous * |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens wrote for the Court that a patented product in a tying arrangement is not presumed to have market power for purposes of antitrust law. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Securities regulation; federal preemption | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous * |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens wrote for the Court that the Securities Litigation Reform Act preempted state law holder claims, even though such claims could not be brought under federal law. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens joined Souter's 5-3 decision and filed a separate concurrence. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Habeas corpus | width=20% valign=top |Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of two dissents from Ginsburg's 5-4 decision ruling that courts could dismiss a ''habeas'' petition filed outside the statute of limitations ''sua sponte''. Though Stevens agreed with this interpretation, he dissented from the Court's decision to announce its judgment when a relevant case would be decided later in the term. The Court had recently granted certiorari in ''Lawrence v. Florida,'' a case which would answer the question of whether Day's petition was actually barred by the statute of limitations. Stevens wrote that "()t seems improvident to affirm a possibly erroneous Court of Appeals judgment that dismissed Day's habeas petition without an evaluation of its merits when we have already granted certiorari to address the issue on which the Court of Appeals may have erred." He suggested the lower court may still avoid a "miscarriage of justice" by keeping Day's case on its docket until after Lawrence is decided, "but it would be better practice for us to do so ourselves." |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Medicaid | width=20% valign=top |Unanimous |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens wrote for the Court in ruling that a federal statutory prohibition against liens on personal property to recover Medicaid expenditures applied to settlements, so that only the portion of the settlement that represented payment for past medical expenses could be claimed by the state. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Bankruptcy; jurisdiction | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens joined in Roberts' unanimous decision and filed a separate concurrence. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of three dissents from Kennedy's 5-4 decision, and also joined Souter's |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Environmental regulation | width=20% valign=top |Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of two dissents from Scalia's plurality decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Souter, Breyer |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens dissented from Thomas' 6-3 decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Statutory interpretation | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a statement respecting the denial of ''certiorari'', in which he clarified that the Court's action was not an endorsement of the lower court's interpretation of the federal sentencing provision for "good-time" credits. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Rights of the accused: U.S. Const. amend. VI: right to a jury trial | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed a statement respecting the Court's denial of ''certiorari'' in which he expressed that he still believed ''Almendarez-Torres v. United States'', 523 U. S. 224 (1998), was wrongly decided, but "that is not a sufficient reason for revisiting the issue" in light of ''stare decisis''. "The denial of a jury trial on the narrow issues of fact concerning a defendant’s prior conviction history, unlike the denial of a jury trial on other issues of fact that give rise tomandatory minimum sentences will seldom create any significant risk of prejudice to the accused." Thomas filed a dissent from the denial of ''cert.'', believing that ''Almendarez-Torres'' should be overruled. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Breyer filed a dissent. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens dissented from Souter's otherwise unanimous decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Souter, Ginsburg |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens dissented from Alito's decision. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Death penalty | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of two dissents from Thomas' 5-4 decision, and joined Souter's. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top | |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Stevens filed one of two dissents from Thomas' 7-2 decision, and joined Souter's. |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top |Electoral redistricting | width=20% valign=top |Breyer (in part) |- | 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 |Ginsburg |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top | |- | align=right valign=top | | valign=top | | width=20% valign=top |Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer; Kennedy (in part) |- | bgcolor=#EEEEEE colspan=3 valign=top |Scalia, Thomas, and Alito filed dissents. |} ==Notes== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「2005 term United States Supreme Court opinions of John Paul Stevens」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|