Willamette Law Online

(7 summaries)

Jessica Osborne

United States Supreme Court

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Setser v. United StatesSentencing: Federal district courts have discretion to order a federal sentence to run consecutively with a state sentence that has yet to be imposed.(03-28-2012)
Reichle v. HowardsCriminal Procedure: (1): Whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; and (2): Whether Secret Service agents should receive qualified and absolute immunity when making split second decisions while protecting the Vice President or the President.(03-21-2012)
Reichle v. HowardsConstitutional Law: ((1): Whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; and (2): Whether Secret Service agents should receive qualified and absolute immunity when making split second decisions when protecting the Vice President or the President).(12-05-2011)
Magner v. GallagherCriminal Law: Discrimination: (Whether a disparate impact claim may be brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and, if so, what approach should the Court use to analyze such a claim.)(11-07-2011)
Minneci v. PollardConstitutional Law: Bivens Actions: Whether a federal inmate who has adequate remedies under state law may bring a Bivens action against employees of a private corrections company that contracts with the federal government for prison services.(11-01-2011)
Martinez v. RyanCriminal Procedure: Whether a state criminal defendant has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on the first post-conviction relief (PCR) appeal that regards an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when state law prohibits raising a direct appeal for ineffective assistance of trial counsel but has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding.(10-04-2011)
Reynolds v. United StatesStanding: Whether standing may be established under plain reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to challenge an interim rule applying the statute retroactively to parties who committed the offense prior to the statute‚Äôs enactment.(10-03-2011)