Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

We expect orders from the March 24 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday, March 28 and Wednesday, March 29.
On Monday the court hears oral argument in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton. Ronald Mann has our preview.
On Monday the court also hears oral argument in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. Ronald Mann has our preview.

Williams v. Johnson

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
13-9085 9th Cir. Not Argued Jul 1, 2014 TBD TBD OT 2013

Issue: (1) Whether, in denying rehearing after deciding Johnson v. Williams, this Court meant to bar a deferential review on remand, or whether denial of rehearing simply reflected that disputes regarding the scope of this Court’s mandate were to be resolved on remand; and (2) whether the previous denial of certiorari as to the question of whether Ms. Williams could prevail under deferential review, or the subsequent denial of rehearing, constituted “certiorari granted” under 28 U.S.C. § 1254, where the Court’s opinion contained no discussion of a question outside a limited grant of certiorari.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded on July 1, 2014.

DateProceedings and Orders
Mar 7 2014Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 11, 2014)
Mar 25 2014Waiver of right of respondent Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden to respond filed.
Apr 3 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.
Apr 14 2014Response Requested . (Due May 14, 2014)
May 14 2014Brief of respondent Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden in opposition filed.
May 21 2014Reply of petitioner Tara Sheneva Williams filed.
May 28 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.
Jun 16 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 23 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.
Jun 30 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.
Jul 1 2014Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED For further consideration of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment claim under the standard set forth in 28 U.S.C. §2254(d).
Aug 4 2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards