We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 15

Supreme Court decides Bobby v. Mitts

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 2 2011

On May 2, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in Bobby v. Mitts, No. 10-1000, upholding Ohio's jury instructions that require jurors first to reject the death penalty before considering a sentence of life imprisonment

Supreme Court decides Walker v. Martin

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2011

On February 23, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Walker v. Martin, No. 09-996, holding that California's "reasonableness" standard governing the timeliness of requests for post-conviction relief qualifies as an independent and adequate state procedural ground for barring federal habeas corpus relief

Supreme Court decides Michigan v. Bryant

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2011

On February 28, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09-150

Supreme Court decides United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 13 2011

On June 13, 2011, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, No. 10-382

Supreme Court decides Turner v. Rogers

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 20 2011

On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Turner v. Rogers, No. 10-10, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when a petitioner was incarcerated for civil contempt for failure to comply with an order for child support payments that was imposed without the benefit of counsel and without alternative procedural safeguards

Supreme Court decides J.D.B. v. North Carolina

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 16 2011

On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court decided J.D.B. v. North Carolina, No. 09-11121, holding that in determining whether a child was in custody and thus entitled to receive Miranda warnings, courts must consider the child's age if it was known to an officer at the time of police questioning, or would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer

Supreme Court decides Davis v. United States

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 16 2011

On June 16, 2011, the Supreme Court decided Davis v. United States, No. 09-11328, holding that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule

Supreme Court decides Fowler v. United States

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 26 2011

On May 26, the United States Supreme Court decided Fowler v. United States, No. 10-5443, holding that to secure a conviction under the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. 1512(a)(1)(C), the government must prove that the defendant killed the victim because there was a "reasonable likelihood" that the victim would communicate with federal law enforcement regarding a federal offense

Supreme Court decides United States v. Tinklenberg

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 26 2011

On May 26, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in United States v. Tinklenberg, No. 09-1498, holding that under the Speedy Trial Act, the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and the disposition of such motion is automatically excluded from the 70-day speedy-trial period, regardless of whether the motion actually causes delay in starting a trial

Supreme Court decides Greene v. Fisher

  • Faegre Baker Daniels
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 8 2011

On November 8, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Greene v. Fisher, No. 10-637, holding under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) that a federal court must determine whether a state court decision is contrary to "clearly established Federal law" as of the time the state court adjudicates the merits of the charge, rather than at the time the conviction becomes final