Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Browning v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 528 U.S. 1050 (1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-12-06
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reviving the contemporaneous objection rule for the penalty phase, as well as guilt phase of a capital trial
  • ex-employee returned to restaurant, shot and killed two people, and injured another during course of an armed robbery
  • defendant shot and killed two people, and injured two people during the course of an armed robbery
  • Johns Hopkins algorithm used; applying test similar to that stated in Daubert and affirming trial court’s ruling of nonadmissibility based on unreliability of polygraphs
  • ". . . we hold that we will no longer consider alleged errors occurring in the penalty phase of a capital trial absent a contemporaneous objection."
  • contemporaneous objection rule will apply to penalty-phase errors as well as guilt-stage errors in capital cases heard after the date of decision
  • “Under the FMLA, the employer’s duties are triggered when the employee provides enough information to put the employer on notice that the employee may be in need of FMLA leave.”
  • to determine whether underlying science of expert's testimony is reliable, court will look at several factors, including: (1) publications and peer review of technique; (2) prior application of method to type of evidence involved in case; (3

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Browning v. Liberty Mutual Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
83 opinions

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.