JURIST

APRIL 24, 2021

The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Jones v. Jones argued that under two of the court’s recent decisions, 2012’s Miller v. .” … Now, it seems, the Court is willing to overrule precedent without even acknowledging it is doing so, much less providing any special justification.

Court Rules 104

Court Rules Stare Decisis Court Legal 104

SCOTUSBlog

DECEMBER 10, 2021

In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal – meaning it decided the case without merits briefing or oral argument – in Andrus v. In an unsigned opinion, the court ruled that Terence Andrus had demonstrated that his lawyer provided deficient performance at sentencing for failing to investigate or introduce mitigating evidence.

Stare Decisis 90

Stare Decisis Court Court Rules Laws 90

The Crime Report

MAY 18, 2021

The decision follows multiple previous precedents set by the Court over the past decade that sharply limited courts’ ability to sentence a juvenile offender to life in prison without parole, the lawyers wrote. The court is fooling no one,”” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in her dissent. In Miller v.

Court Decisions 98

Court Decisions Stare Decisis Court Court Rules 98

SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 30, 2022

The Supreme Court instructed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider whether counsel’s inadequate performance had prejudiced Andrus – that is, whether but for counsel’s deficient performance, the mitigating evidence might have prompted at least one juror to opt for a sentence of life without parole rather than the death penalty.

Stare Decisis 91

Stare Decisis Court Felony Statute 91

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 20, 2022

Instead, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld “general jurisdiction” over Cooper on the ground that Cooper, by registering as a foreign corporation in Georgia, had consented to suit in Georgia as a condition of doing business in the state. Animal Legal Defense Fund. Animal Legal Defense Fund , 21-760. Next up is Kelly v.

Statute 101

Statute Stare Decisis Court Manufacturing 101

SCOTUSBlog

JULY 6, 2022

Yet instead of giving due legal effect to this difference, which Dobbs holds “sharply distinguishes” abortion from contraception, Roe and Casey expanded procreative liberty from Griswold ’s right to prevent pregnancy by contraception to the right to terminate it by abortion.

Stare Decisis 104

Stare Decisis Court Legal Legal 104

JonathanTurley

NOVEMBER 29, 2021

Despite annual columns questioning such apocalyptic predictions, which often seemed more political than legal, the granting of Dobbs led me to write my first “this could be it” column. That does not mean the court will do so, but it could substantially reduce Roe’s hold over states.

Stare Decisis 37

Stare Decisis Court Laws Law School 37