MSU College of Law

The Kelley Institute
Law of Lawyering
Supreme Court Review

Cases tagged as: 2013 Term

Burt v. Titlow

134 S. Ct. 10, 187 L. Ed. 2d 348 (2013) (PDF)

The Court held that the Sixth Circuit failed to apply the correct standard ("doubly deferential" standard) of review when it did not credit the state district court's reasonable factual findings when the Circuit assumed ineffective assistance of counsel where the record was silent.

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, attorney-client relationship, ineffective assistance of counsel, legal advice, right to counsel,

Highmark Inc v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.

134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014) (PDF)

A district court's exceptional-case determination under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation in “exceptional cases,” should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, attorneys fees,

Hinton v. Alabama

134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014) (PDF)

Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was supported when defense counsel in a capital murder trial failed to seek additional funds to replace an inadequate expert when that failure was based not on any strategic decision, but rather on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000. The Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the case for reconsideration of whether the attorney's deficient performance was prejudicial.

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, ABA amicus brief filed, attorney-client relationship, ineffective assistance of counsel, legal advice, right to counsel, sixth amendment,

Kaley v. U.S.

134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014) (PDF)

Defendants were not entitled to challenge grand jury’s probably cause determination, even when they claimed that protective order restraining their assets interfered with their ability to retain criminal defense counsel of their choice.

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, due process clause, right to counsel, sixth amendment,

Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) (PDF)

Section 285 of the Patent Act authorizes a district court to award attorney's fees in patent litigation in "exceptional cases”. An “exceptional” case is simply one that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party's litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated. District courts should determine whether a case is exceptional “in the case-by-case exercise of their discretion, considering the totality of the circumstances.”

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, attorneys fees,

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund

134 S. Ct. 773, 198 LRRM 2129 (2014) (PDF)

The Court reversed and remanded the case, holding that a decision on the merits is a "final decision" even if the award or amount of attorneys fees remains to be determined.

Related tag(s): 2013 Term, attorneys fees,