Kanth v. Kanth, No. 00-1630; No. 00-1644; No. 00-1659; No. 00-1690; No. 00-1694; No. 00-5961; No. 00-7786; No. 00-7973; No. 00-8444; No. 00-8471; No. 00-8483; No. 00-8602; No. 00-8992; No. 00-9208; No. 00-9212; No. 00-9219; No. 00-9433; No. 00-9444; No. 00-9451; No. 00-9454; No. 00-9523; No. 00-9613; No. 00-9627; No. 00-9638; No. 00-9652; No. 00-9659; No. 00-9669; No. 00-9691; No. 00-9703; No. 00-9710; No. 00-9778; No. 00-9821; No. 00-9854; No. 00-9872; No. 00-9897; No. 00-9938; No. 00-10018; No. 00-10023; No. 00-10027; No. 00-10066; No. 00-10103; No. 00-10213; No. 00-10241

Read

Notebook

No. 00-1630; No. 00-1644; No. 00-1659; No. 00-1690; No. 00-1694; No. 00-5961; No. 00-7786; No. 00-7973; No. 00-8444; No. 00-8471; No. 00-8483; No. 00-8602; No. 00-8992; No. 00-9208; No. 00-9212; No. 00-9219; No. 00-9433; No. 00-9444; No. 00-9451; No. 00-9454; No. 00-9523; No. 00-9613; No. 00-9627; No. 00-9638; No. 00-9652; No. 00-9659; No. 00-9669; No. 00-9691; No. 00-9703; No. 00-9710; No. 00-9778; No. 00-9821; No. 00-9854; No. 00-9872; No. 00-9897; No. 00-9938; No. 00-10018; No. 00-10023; No. 00-10027; No. 00-10066; No. 00-10103; No. 00-10213; No. 00-10241 | SCOTUS | Aug 27, 2001

*970ante, p. 929;

ante, p. 930;

ante, p. 916;

ante, p. 951;

ante, p. 656;

ante, p. 952;

532 U.S. 1023" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-05-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/powers-v-united-states-9192408?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9192408">532 U. S. 1023;

532 U.S. 977" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-04-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kemp-v-new-york-9191307?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9191307">532 U. S. 977;

ante, p. 904;

ante, p. 952;

532 U.S. 996" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-04-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/simpkins-v-fannie-mae-9191791?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9191791">532 U. S. 996;

532 U.S. 1040" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-05-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/okeefe-v-california-9192852?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9192852">532 U. S. 1040;

532 U.S. 1055" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-05-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/thompson-v-new-york-9193181?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9193181">532 U. S. 1055;

532 U.S. 1069" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-06-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/kearney-v-oklahoma-9193406?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9193406">532 U. S. 1069;

ante, 'p. 953;

ante, p. 932;

532 U.S. 1071" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="2001-06-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bowman-v-florida-9193465?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9193465">532 U. S. 1071;

ante, p. 919;

ante, p. 907;

ante, p. 933;

ante, p. 935;

ante, p. 954;

ante, p. 948;

ante, p. 935;

*971No. 00-9691. No. 00-9703. No. 00-9710. No. 00-9778. No. 00-9821. No. 00-9854. No. 00-9872. No. 00-9897. No. 00-9938. No. 00-10018. No. 00-10023. No. 00-10027. No. 00-10066. No. 00-10103. No. 00-10213. No. 00-10241.

ante, p. 955;

ante, p. 921;

ante, p. 955;

ante, p. 908;

ante, p. 956; '

ante, p. 936;

ante, p. 921;

ante, p. 957;

ante, p. 958;

ante, p. 937;

ante, p. 958;

ante, p. 939;

ante, p. 960; and

ante, p. 961. Petitions for rehearing denied.