Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan| Feb | Mar| Apr| Unscheduled

Unscheduled October 2001 Term

United States v. Thomas Lamar Bean
No. 01-704

Subject:

    Federal Firearms Act, Felons, Right to Possess Firearms, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Question:
    Under federal law, a person who is convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing firearms. The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), may grant relief from that prohibition if it is established to his satisfaction that certain preconditions are established. See 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Since 1992, however, every appropriations law for ATF has specified that ATF may not expend any appropriated funds to act upon appliations for such relief. The question presented is whether, despite that appropriations provision barring ATF from acting on such applications, a federal district court has authority to grant relief from firearms disabilities to persons convicted of a felony.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

Rex R. Sprietsma, Administrator of the Estate of Jeanne Sprietsma, Deceased v. Mercury Marine
No. 01-706

Subject:

    Federal Boat Safety Act, Product Liability, Defective Design, Preemption
Question:
    Whether petitioner's state common-law tort action, based on respondent's failure to install a propeller guard on a motorboat, is preempted by the Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, 46 U.S.C. §§ 4301 et seq., or by the decision of the Secretary of Transportation in 1990 to take no regulatory action to require the installation of propeller guards on recreational boats.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Michigan, et al.
No. 01-270

Subject:

    1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), registration fees, reciprocity agreements, Commerce Clause, Preemption
Question:
    Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in holding that, under 49 U.S.C. 11506(c)(2)(B)(iv)(III) (1994) and 49 U.S.C. 14504(c)(2)(B) (iv)(III) (Supp. V 1999), only a State's generic fee is relevant to determining the fee that was collected or charged as of November 15, 1991.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Trucking Associations Inc. (Petition) [PDF]
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security v. Peabody Coal Company, et al.
No. 01-705

Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Bellaire Corp., et al.
No. 01-715

Subject:

Question:

    The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act or Act), 26 U.S.C. 9701-9722 (1994 & Supp. V 1999), established the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (Combined Fund) to ensure the continued provision of health-care benefits to retired coal miners and their dependents who worked under collective bargaining agreements that promised such benefits. Those benefits are financed principally through premiums that must be paid to the Combined Fund by "signatory operators" that employed miners under those collective bargaining agreements and are assigned responsibility for their retired miners' benefits. The Act provides that the Commissioner of Social Security "shall, before October 1, 1993," assign responsibility for each eligible retired coal miner to the signatory operator that employed the miner (or to a "related person" of the signatory operator). 26 U.S.C. 9706(a). The Commissioner was unable, however, to complete all such assignments before October 1, 1993.

    The question presented is whether the Commissioner's assignments of responsibility for retired miners that were made on or after October 1, 1993, are void.

Decisions:
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 21, 2001 [Peabody Coal Co.]
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: June 22, 2001 [Bellaire Corp.]
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 22, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (01-705) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (01-715) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

Eric Eldred, et al. v. John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General
No. 01-618

Subject:

    Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, First Amendment, Copyright Clause
Question:
    Did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that Congress has the power under the Copyright Clause to extend retrospectively the term of existing copyrights?

    Is a law that extends the term of existing and future copy-rights categorically immune from challenge[] under the First Amendment ?
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Association of Law Libraries et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Constitutional law professors et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Copyright law professors (Petition) [PDF]
  • Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Internet Archive (Petition) [PDF]

Ronald O. Otte and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I, et al.
No. 01-729

Subject:

    Megan's Law, Internet Registries, Sex Offenders
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. Robert Babb, Edee Templet, and Kenneth A. Devun v. Hurley Henson
No. 01-757

Subject:

    Jurisdiction, Class Action, Sanctions
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Ford Motor Co. and Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. John B. McCauley et al.
No. 01-896

Subject:

    Jurisdiction, Credit Card Rebates
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT]

Karen Howsam, etc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
No. 01-800

Subject:

    Securities Arbitration
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Thomas Joe Miller-El v. Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
No. 01-7662

Subject:

    Peremptory Challenges, Jury Selection, Racial Discrimination
Question:
    Did the Court of Appeals err in denying a certificate of appealability and in evaluating petitioner's claim under Batson v. Kentucky?
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Federal Communications Commission v. NextWave Personal Communications, et al.
No. 01-653

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, et al. v. NextWave Personal Communications, et al.
No. 01-657

Subject:

    PCS Licenses, Auctions, Bankruptcy, Federal Communications Commission
Question:
    Whether Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 525, conflicts with and displaces the Federal Communications Commission's rules for congressionally authorized spectrum auctions, which provide that wireless telecommunications licenses obtained at auction automatically cancel upon the winning bidder's failure to make timely payments to fulfill its winning bid.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (01-653) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (01-657) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Joint Appendex (Volume I) (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Joint Appendex (Volume II) (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

David Allen Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
No. 01-7574

Subject:

    Double Jeopardy, Death Penalty
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Freeman Ayers, et al.
No. 01-963

Subject:

    Asbestos, Railroads, Emotional Distress, Federal Employers' Liability Act
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 1, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California v. Leandro Andrade
Gary Albert Ewing v. California
No. 01-1127, 01-6978

Subject:

    Three Strikes Law, Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (01-1127) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (01-6978) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Victor Moseley v. Secret Catalogue, et al.
No. 01-1015

Subject:

    Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Economic Injury
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

United States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe
No. 01-1067

Subject:

    Native Americans, Money Damages, Breach of Trust
Question:
    In 1960, Congress declared that a former military post in Arizona would "be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, subject to the right of the Secretary of the Interior to use any part of the land and improvements for administrative or school purposes for as long as they are needed for that purpose." Act of Mar. 18, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-392, 74 Stat. 8. The question presented is whether that Act authorizes the award of money damages against the United States for alleged breach of trust in connection with such property.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Joseph Scheidler, Andrew Scholberg, Timothy Murphy, and The Pro-Life Action League, Inc. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1118

Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1119

Subject:

    Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, Abortion Clinics, Protests, Injuctive Relief
Question:
  1. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

  2. Whether the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce by robbery or extortion and which defines extortion as the obtaining of property from another, with [the owner s] consent, where such consent is induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear (18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2) (emphasis added)) criminalizes the activities of political protesters who engage in sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public s access to a business s premises and interfere with the freedom of putative customers to obtain services offered there.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-1118) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-1119) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner Scheidler et al. [PDF]
  • Petitioner Scheidler et al. - Reply [PDF]

Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. Ricky Bell, Warden
No. 01-9094

Subject:

    Death Penalty, Effective Assistance of Counsel
Question:
    1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits, that every Rule 60(b) Motion constitutes a prohibited "second or successive" habeas petition as a matter of law.

    2. Whether a court of appeals abuses its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when the failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever receiving any adjudication of his claims on the merits.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

Pierce County v. Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma Guillen, Minors, et al.
No. 01-1229

Subject:

    Federalism, Preemption, Federal-Aid Highway Act, Federal Privilege, Tenth Amendment
Question:
    1. Is 23 U.S.C. § 409, a federal statute which protects certain documents "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in federal or state trials, a valid exercise of Congress's power under the supremacy, spending, commerce, or necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution?


    2. Do private plaintiffs have standing to assert "states' rights" under the 10th Amendment when their state's legislative and executive branches expressly approve and accept benefits and terms of the federal statute in question?
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Meyer, David, etc. v. Holley, Emma Mary, et al.
No. 01-1120

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, John, et al.
No. 01-1231

Subject:

    Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Sex Offender Registry
Question:
    Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a State from listing convicted sex offenders in a publicly disseminated registry without first affording such offenders individualized hearings on their current dangerousness.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Washington State Dept. of Soc. &Amp; Health Servs., et al. v. Guardianship of Keffeler, et al.
No. 01-1420

Subject:

Question:
    [Question presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

Virginia v. Black, Barry E., et al.
No. 01-1107

Subject:

Question:
    [Question presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

  • [Coming Soon]

United States v. Recio, Francisco J., et al.
No. 01-1184

Subject:

Question:
    Whether a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

Boeing Co., et al. v. United States
No. 01-1209

United States v. Boeing Sales Corp., et al.
No. 01-1382

Subject:

Question:
    1. Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1979-1984 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" (26 §§ U.S.C. 991-997 (1976 & Supp. III 1979)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the thenapplicable Treasury regulations.


    2. Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1985-1987 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "foreign sales corporations" (26 §§ U.S.C. 921-927 (1988)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the then-applicable Treasury regulations.
Decisions:
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 28, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-1209) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-1382) From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Cross-Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Campbell, Curtis, et ux.
No. 01-1289

Subject:

Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:
  • Supreme Court of Utah, Filed: October 19, 2001
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 3, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

Chavez, Ben v. Martinez, Oliverio
No. 01-1444

Subject:

Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

United States v. Navajo Nation
No. 01-1375

Subject:

    Native Americans, Money Damages, Breach of Trust
Question:
    Whether the court of appeals properly held that the United States is liable to the Navajo Nation for up to $600 million in damages for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Secretary's actions concerning an Indian mineral lease, without finding that the Secretary had violated any specific statutory or regulatory duty established pursuant to the IMLA.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

Borden Ranch Partnership, et al., v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng., et al.
No. 01-1243

Subject:

    Clean Water Act, Deep Ripping, Civil Penalties
Question:

    1. Whether deep ripping, an activity that disgorges and redeposits soil in wetlands and waters of the United States to convert those areas to dry land, may result in a discharge of a pollutant for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.

    2. Whether petitioners' deep ripping of a wetland qualified for the conditional exemption from regulation under Section 404(f) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f).

    3. Whether each violation of the Clean Water Act should be counted in determining the maximum civil penalty under Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).

Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Washington Legal Foundation v. Legal Foundation of WA
No. 01-1325

Subject:

    Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA), Fifth Amendment, Takings
Question:

    1. Whether the regulatory scheme for funding state legal services by systematically seizing this property violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution so that the property owners are entitled to relief.

    2. Whether injunctive relief is available to enjoin a State from committing such a violation of the Takings Clause, where the legislative scheme in issue clearly contemplates that no compensation would be paid to the owners of the interest taken, and where the small amount due in any individual case often renders recovery through litigation impractical.

Decisions:
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit , Filed: January 10, 2001
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Rehearing En Banc [PDF], Filed: November 14, 2001
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 10, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner Washington Legal Foundation (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondent Legal Foundation of Washington (Petition) [PDF] [WORD]
  • Respondent Washington Supreme Court (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

Archer, A. Elliott, et ux. v. Warner, Arlene L.
No. 01-1418

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

Cuyahoga Falls, OH, et al. v. Buckeye Community Hope
No. 01-1269

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. William Hibbs, et al.
No. 01-1368

Subject:

    Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 11th Amendment, 14th Amendment, Immunity
Question:
    Whether 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C), the family medical care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, thereby constituting a valid exercise of congressional power to abrogate the states' 11th Amendment immunity from suit by individuals.
Decisions:
  • U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit [PDF], Filed: December 11, 2001
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 24, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans v. Miller
No. 00-1471

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Amicus:
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Pharmaceutical Research v. Kevin Concannon, et al.
No. 01-188

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

Demore, District Dir., INS v. Hyung Joon Kim
No. 01-1491

Subject:

    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Mandatory Detention, Fifth Amendment, Due Process
Question:
    Whether respondent's mandatory detention under [8 U.S.C.] Section 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner Demore and United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner Demore and United States - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]

Cook County, IL v. United States, ex rel. Chandler
No. 01-1572

Subject:

    [Coming Soon]
Question:
    [Coming Soon]
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    [Coming Soon]

Dole Food Company, et al. v. Gerardo D. Patrickson
No. 01-593

Dead Sea Bromine Co. v. Gerardo D. Patrickson
No. 01-594

Subject:

    Corporations, Foreign States
Question:
    1. Whether a corporation is an "agency or instrumentality" if a foreign state owns a majority of the shares of a corporate enterpise that in turn owns a majority of the shares of the corporation.

    2. Whether a corporation is an "agency or instrumentality" if a foreign state owned a majority of the shares of the corporation at the time of the events giving rise to litigation, but the foreign state does not own a majority of those shares at the time that a plaintiff commences a suit against the corporation.
Decisions:

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-593) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Docket Sheet (No. 01-594) From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Amicus:
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Erick C. Clay v. United States
No. 01-1500

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Finality of Conviction
Question:
    Whether petitioner's judgment of conviction became "final" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 para. 6(1) one year after the court of appeals issued its mandate on direct appeal or one year after his time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari expired.
Decisions:
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2002

Resources:

  • Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard