Shoop v. Hill
Holding
Because Danny Hill's intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit's reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
Judgment
Vacated and remanded, n/a on Jan 7, 2019.
Jul 6, 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 9, 2018)Jul 27, 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 9, 2018 to August 30, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
Jul 31, 2018Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 30, 2018.
Aug 29, 2018Brief of respondent Danny Hill in opposition filed.Aug 29, 2018Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Danny Hill.Sep 10, 2018Reply of petitioner Tim Shoop, Warden filed.Sep 12, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
Oct 9, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
Oct 22, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.
Oct 29, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.
Nov 5, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
Nov 13, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
Nov 26, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
Dec 3, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
Dec 20, 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
Jan 7, 2019Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
Jan 7, 2019Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)
Feb 8, 2019JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Recommended Citation: Shoop v. Hill, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/shoop-v-hill/