|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-6316||Nev.||Not Argued||Mar 6, 2017||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2016|
Holding: In reviewing Michael Rippo's application for state postconviction relief -- contending under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that his trial judge, the target of a federal bribery probe, could not have impartially adjudicated the case -- the Nevada Supreme Court did not ask the question required by precedent: whether, considering all the circumstances alleged, the risk of bias was too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on March 6, 2017.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 04 2016||Application (16A133) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 17, 2016 to October 3, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Aug 09 2016||Application (16A133) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until October 3, 2016.|
|Oct 03 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2016)|
|Nov 02 2016||Brief of respondent Renee Baker, Warden in opposition filed.|
|Nov 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Michael Damon Rippo filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 16 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 2, 2016.|
|Nov 23 2016||Record Requested.|
|Dec 06 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Nevada. The record is electronic.|
|Dec 08 2016||Record received from the Eighth Judicial District Court, Las Vegas, NV. The record is electronic and portions are SEALED.|
|Dec 15 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 19, 2017.|
|Feb 06 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Feb 21 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.|
|Feb 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.|
|Mar 06 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Apr 07 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 07 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.