Justia announced that it will supply daily opinion summaries for cases from the U.S. Supreme Courts, the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and all 50 state Supreme Courts. Summaries are sent via email and can be customized by jurisdiction and topic….
Archive for the ‘Court Opinions’ Category
Supreme Court End Of Term – First Amendment, Jurisdiction, And A Smidge More
27
Jun
The Supreme Court ended its term this morning by releasing some of the most anticipated rulings of the year. Let’s start with Brown v. Entertainment Merchant’s Assn. (08-1448). That case concerned a law passed by California that restricted the sale…
Supreme Court Action Yesterday – Railroad Liability for Injury and Sentencing
24
Jun
Here are the summaries of the other two Supreme Court opinions filed yesterday. CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride (10-235) concerns jury instructions in railroad injury cases. McBride was a locomotive engineer who was injured while switching railroad cars. He filed…
Supreme Court Action Today – Sixth Amendment, Free Speech and More
23
Jun
The Supreme Court issued six opinions this morning. Let’s start with Bullcoming v. New Mexico (09-10876). Bulcoming was prosecuted in New Mexico for DWI. The state called a forensic technician named Razatosr to testify about the forensic laboratory report that…
Court Compels Arbitration Clauses Against Students
22
Jun
Here’s a story that makes one stop and think. The Chronicle of Higher Education (premium content subscribers) is reporting on a federal case where students in Colorado sued Westwood College there for allegedly misrepresenting its tuition costs, accreditation status, and…
Supreme Court Decision in Turner v. Rogers Discusses Right to Paid Counsel
20
Jun
The Supreme Court has decided Turner v. Rogers, the case dealing with what procedures are required in child support civil contempt cases, not brought by the state, in which a non-payer is at risk of incarceration.
Opinion by Justice Breyer (5-4), with Justice Kennedy joining the majority. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf.
It turns out to be a very important decision for self-represented litigants and our work.
The Court basically takes the position that reversal is required, not because there is a categorical right to counsel, but because the trial court failed to follow available procedures to establish whether the non-paying father had a current ability to pay.
Here are the major highlights of the majority Opinion:
• In determining whether there is a right to paid counsel at a civil contempt hearing, the Court applies the Mathews v. Eldridge factors of private interest impacted, risk of erroneous deprivation, and countervailing interest in not providing additional protections. (Slip Opinion at 11.)
• Arguments AGAINST need for counsel in all cases are: (1) Ability to pay is like indigence in that it is something that can often be determined before decision as to whether counsel can be provided; (2) the opposing side is NOT the state, and often there is no opposing counsel, and creating a right to counsel would “create an asymmetry of representation” increasing risk of unfair decisions; (3) as pointed out by the Solicitor General, there are “available at set of ‘substitute procedural safeguards’ quoting Mathews. (Slip Opinion at 13-14.)
• Importantly for the decision: “Those safeguards include (1) notice to the defendant that his “ability to pay” is a critical issue in the contempt proceeding; (2) the use of a form (or the equivalent) to elicit relevant financial information; (3) an opportunity at the hearing for the defendant to respond to statements and questions about his financial status, (e.g., those triggered by his responses on the form); and (4) an express finding by the court that the defendant has the ability to pay.” (Slip Opinion at 14). Citing to Solicitor General Brief and oral argument.
• The Court is careful to limit its holding to cases in which the opposing party is not the state. (Slip Opinion at 14.)
• Also: “Neither do we address what due process requires in an unusually complex case where a defendant ‘can fairly be represented only by a trained advocate.'” Quoting Gagnon. (Slip Opinion at 16.)
• Dissent, per Justice Thomas, argues, inter alia, that the procedures suggested by the Solicitor General are not properly before the court, and so “[a]lthough I think that the majority’s analytical framework does not account for the interests that children and mothers have in effective and flexible methods to secure payment, I do not pass on the wisdom of the majority’s preferred procedures. (Slip Opinion [dissent] at 12.)
Supreme Court Action Today – Wal-Mart Class Actions, Global Warming Regulation, and More
20
Jun
The Supreme Court issued four opinions this morning. At least two of them are major end of term cases that shake up the legal landscape. The first of these is the Wal-Mart class action case, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes…
Supreme Court Action Today – Tenth Amendment, Comity, And A Lot Of Criminal Stuff
16
Jun
The Supreme Court issued five opinions today, mostly dealing with criminal law issues, though they touch on other aspects of constitutional law. The first case is Bond v. United States (09-1227), where the Court decided that individuals have standing under…
Supreme Court Action Today – Government-Attorney Privilege, Rule 10b-5 Actions, and Conflicts of Interest
13
Jun
The Supreme Court issued three substantive opinions this morning, and one summary affirmance based on an equally divided Court. The first case, United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation (10-382), concerns whether the “fiduciary exception” to discover legal advice made in…
Supreme Court Action Yesterday – The Microsoft Patent Opinion and Others
10
Jun
The Supreme Court issued four opinions yesterday, including the heavily awaited opinion in Microsoft’s challenge to the evidence standard for declaring a patent invalid. Microsoft lost. The case is Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership (10-290). i4i sued Microsoft over…
