Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.

The Kelley Institute
Law of Lawyering
Supreme Court Review

Cases tagged as: decision in favor of academic amicus brief

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd

131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011) (PDF)

The Court found that then-Attorney General Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity in the use of the federal material witness warrant as a tool for preventative detention and investigation of terrorist suspects.

Related tag(s): 2010 Term, academic amicus brief filed, decision against academic amicus brief, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, qualified immunity,

Harrington v. Richter

131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (PDF)

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, where the defense attorney used cross-examination and other methods to create reasonable doubt rather than expert testimony and forensic evidence about the blood that was found at the murder scene.

Related tag(s): 2010 Term, academic amicus brief filed, attorney-client relationship, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, ineffective assistance of counsel, prejudice, sixth amendment,

Holland v. Florida

130 S. Ct. 2549 (2010) (PDF)

Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His counsel failed to file a habeas petition within the one year limit even though he urged him to. Limitations period under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244(d)(1) for filing federal habeas corpus petition held subject to equitable tolling; further factual consideration held required to determine whether allegedly unprofessional conduct of accused's counsel warranted equitable tolling.

Related tag(s): 2009 Term, academic amicus brief filed, attorney-client relationship, bad faith, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, equitable tolling, unprofessional conduct,

Maples v. Thomas

132 S.Ct. 912 (2012) (PDF)

In Maples, the Court had to decide whether a petitioner's failure to appeal a decision because it was sent to his attorneys at an address where they no longer worked constituted cause to excuse procedural default. The Court held that cause for a procedural default exists when something external to a petitioner impedes the petitioner’s efforts to comply with a State’s procedural rules.

Related tag(s): 2011 Term, academic amicus brief filed, attorney-client relationship, decision in favor of academic amicus brief,

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter

130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (PDF)

Disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. Postjudgment appeals, together with other review mechanisms, suffice to protect the rights of litigants and preserve the vitality of the attorney-client privilege.

Related tag(s): 2009 Term, ABA amicus brief filed, academic amicus brief filed, appeals, attorney-client privilege, decision against ABA amicus brief, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, discovery,

Padilla v. Kentucky

130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (PDF)

Counsel's alleged failure to correctly advise an alien legal permanent resident of United States, before he pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana, that this was deportable offense under Immigration and Naturalization Act provision (8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)) held to be deficient assistance under Sixth Amendment.

Related tag(s): 2009 Term, ABA amicus brief filed, academic amicus brief filed, attorney-client relationship, decision in favor of ABA amicus brief, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, immigration, ineffective assistance of counsel, sixth amendment,

Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel Winn

130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010) (PDF)

Federal District Court held not to have provided proper justification for 75 percent lodestar enhancement included in attorneys' fees award under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1988(b) in civil rights action, as lodestar could be enhanced due to superior attorney performance in only rare and exceptional circumstances.

Related tag(s): 2009 Term, academic amicus brief filed, attorneys fees, decision in favor of academic amicus brief,

Turner v. Rogers

131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (PDF)

The Court held that indigent, noncustodial parents subject to a child support order are not constitutionally entitled to counsel at a civil contempt proceeding, even if the parent faces jail time.

Related tag(s): 2010 Term, ABA amicus brief filed, academic amicus brief filed, decision against ABA amicus brief, decision in favor of academic amicus brief, due process clause, right to counsel,


Skip to main content, skip to search, or skip to the top of the page.