Bianca Pacheco

United States Supreme Court (8 summaries)

Carpenter v. United States

The Government conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it accesses cell phone records that include cell-site location information.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Pereira v. Sessions

A document that is titled “notice to appear” but does not include time-and-place information cannot qualify as a “notice to appear” under 8 U. S. C. 1229(a) and thus does not trigger the stop-time rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Benisek v. Lamone

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction because the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against the motion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

China Agritech Inc. v. Resh

Upon denial of class certification, the statute of limitations is not tolled for a putative class member who failed to promptly join an existing suit or file an individual action and seeks to commence the class action anew.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Azar v. Garza

When a civil case becomes moot, it is established practice to reverse or vacate the lower court’s judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Dahda v. United States

A wiretap order is not facially insufficient if it includes the information required by 18 U. S. C. §2518, even if the order exceeds its proper territorial jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

The recently enacted CLOUD Act effectively amended the Stored Communications Act to require a U.S. email provider to disclose electronic information stored abroad.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Marinello v. United States

To convict under 26 U. S. C. §7212(a), the finder of fact must determine that the defendant had knowledge of a particular proceeding or could have reasonably foreseen that a particular proceeding would commence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (3 summaries)

Biestek v. Commissioner of Social Security

Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work” available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Culbertson v. Berryhill

Whether fees subject to 42 U. S. C. 406(b)’s 25-percent cap include, as the Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits hold, only fees for representation in court or, as the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits hold, also fees for representation before the agency.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Bucklew v. Precythe

(1) Whether, when evaluating a method of execution as-applied challenge, courts should assume that medical staff is competent to ensure an execution will go as planned despite an inmate’s rare and serious medical condition; (2) whether a court may look to the record and determine that a fact finder could conclude that proposed methods of execution are significantly different, or whether there must be a single witness to compare the risks of the State’s and inmate’s proposed methods of execution; (3) whether the Eighth Amendment requires that an inmate challenging a method of execution must prove that another available method will substantially reduce their risk of suffering due to unique medical conditions; and (4) whether Petitioner, in this case, met the burden established in Glossip v. Gross by proving the procedures to be used in his proposed method of execution, the severity of the pain likely to be produced, and how the procedure compares to the State’s method.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Back to Top