Articles Posted in U.S. Supreme Court

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

May 26, 2009.

CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Haywood v. Drown, No. 07-10374 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner, judgment for Defendant-Officers is reversed where Correction Law section 24, as applied to Section 1983 claims, violates the Supremacy Clause, because New York’s policy of shielding correctional officers from liability for conduct performed in the scope of their employment is contrary to Congress’s judgment that all persons who violate federal rights while acting under color of state law shall be held liable for damages.

May 1, 2009.

Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

DEAN v. UNITED STATES (No. 08-5274)

United States Supreme Court Decision: April 28, 2009

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

SYNOPSIS.

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, MILITARY LAW Shinseki v. Sanders, No. 07-1209 In an application for veterans’ disability benefits, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs erred in denying benefits is reversed, where the Federal Circuit’s “harmless-error” framework conflicts with 38 U.S.C. section 7261(b)(2)’s requirement that the Veterans Court take “due account of the rule of prejudicial error.”

CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT Ministry of Def. v. Elahi, No. 07-615 In an action seeking to attach a judgment obtained by Iran, the District Court’s order permitting the attachment is reversed, where Plaintiff could not attach the judgment because he waived his right to do so, as the U.S. paid Plaintiff as partial compensation for his judgment against Iran under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

April 8, 2009

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

Corley v. United States No. 07-10441

Harbison v. Bell, Warden

No. 07-8521

“In reversing a 6th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation. Following Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition. Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings. The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6th Circuit had affirmed.”

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

March 24-25, 2009

CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, HABEAS CORPUS

From the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section: http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

I”n a case arising from a felony domestic assault and habitual offender charges, where the defendant had at least six different appointed attorneys between the time of his arrest and his trial, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for want of a speedy trial. The Vermont Supreme Court, however, reversed, holding that the conviction must be vacated, and the charges dismissed, because the State did not accord a speedy trial as is required by the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that The Vermont Supreme Court erred in ranking assigned counsel essentially as state actors in the criminal justice system, stating that assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients, and, in the absence of institutional breakdowns of the public defender system, delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent.”

The full opinion can be accessed at http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-88