Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Browning v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

528 U.S. 1050

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.