|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-694||9th Cir.||Not Argued||Jun 3, 2013||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2012|
Holding: In his trial for rape, Jackson sought to present evidence to show that the victim had previously reported that he had assaulted her. The state supreme court held that the evidence was properly excluded, but in his federal habeas proceedings the Ninth Circuit ordered the state to either retry or release Jackson, on the ground that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right to present a defense, and that the state supreme court’s contrary decision was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the state supreme court’s application of the Supreme Court’s clearly established precedents was in fact reasonable when no prior decision by the Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of the evidence violated Jackson’s constitutional right.
Judgment: Granted, reversed and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 3, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 3 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 7, 2013)|
|Jan 7 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 6, 2013.|
|Jan 7 2013||Brief amici curiae of Michigan, and 14 Other States filed.|
|Feb 5 2013||Brief of respondent Calvin O'Neil Jackson in opposition filed.|
|Feb 5 2013||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Calvin O'Neil Jackson.|
|Feb 14 2013||Reply of petitioners Nevada, et al. filed.|
|Feb 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 15 2013||Record Requested .|
|Mar 15 2013||Record received from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (available on PACER).|
|Mar 18 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013.|
|Mar 19 2013||Record received from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (one box).|
|Mar 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Apr 1 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.|
|Apr 15 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 19, 2013.|
|Apr 22 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 26, 2013.|
|Apr 29 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 16, 2013.|
|May 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 23, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013.|
|Jun 3 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jun 7 2013||Record returned to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada (1 box).|
|Jul 5 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.