-
Contributors
Blogroll
- Above The Law
- Althouse
- Balkinazation
- Becker-Posner Blog
- BLT: The Blog of Legal Times
- Concurring Opinions
- Dorf on Law
- How Appealing
- Law.Com
- Most Strongly Supported
- Prawfsblawg
- Prison Law Blog
- SCOTUS Blog
- Sentencing Law and Policy
- Text & History
- The Confrontation Blog
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Wait A Second!
- Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Categories
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
The Cockle BurDisclaimer
Any commentary or opinions about cases, legal theory, legal strategy, court procedure, and all other content are the express opinion of their writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Cockle Law Brief Printing Co (“Cockle Law”), Cockle Bur, Inc. (“Cockle Bur”) its employees, owners, or users of this site. These commentary and opinions should be relied upon at your own risk. These commentary and opinions are not legal advice.
All information made available at www.Cocklebur.com is for informational purposes only. This website, and all content contained herein, is not meant to provide legal advice or answer specific legal question. It is not a substitute for legal advice. You should neither act, nor refrain from acting, based on information contained in this site; nor should you consider any blogs or other content posted on www.Cocklebur.com to be a substitute for proper legal research conducted by a licensed attorney. Visitors to this site should consult a licensed attorney before relying on any information found on this site.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Cockle Law informs you that any U.S. federal tax advice or information contained in this site (including any blog post or on any site linked to or from www.Cocklebur.com) is not intended or written to be used, and can not be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Category Archives: Briefs
The New York Times Covers MacDonald v. Johnson
Last week I wrote about a case that Cockle Contributor Jacob Huebert and I are involved with that is before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves a Lawrence v. Texas/due process challenge to the application of a state sodomy statute. Today, Adam Liptak at the New York Times continues the discussion–the article is entitled, “A Place on [...]
Also posted in Supreme Court ( 2 Comments)
Do Lies In The Courtroom Matter?
A few weeks ago David Hinkson’s unusual case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the form of a petition for writ of certiorari. Hinkson was convicted by a jury for soliciting the murder of three federal officials. The conviction was a product of government witness, Elven Swisher, who wore a purple heart on the witness stand as he told the jury that he about his extensive combat duty in the Korean War. The problem was that Swisher had yet to join the military
Also posted in Supreme Court ( Leave a comment)
An Illogical Treatment Of Sex
Tagged 10-852, Allison Harnack, Ann Marie Hopwood, Jacob Huebert, Lawrence v. Texas, MacDonald v. Johnson, right to sexual privacy, sodomy
Last week, CockleBur contributor Jacob Huebert filed a petition for writ of certiorari in MacDonald v. Johnson. [By way of full disclosure, the Petitioner’s wife contacted me several months ago about assisting her with the Supreme Court filing, and I in turn reached out to Jacob who, fortunately for the MacDonalds, took the case on a pro bono basis.] In the petition, we ask for the Court’s review in part because the Commonwealth of Virginia continues a practice of randomly enforcing its sodomy statue.
Also posted in Supreme Court ( 2 Comments)
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri–Petitioner’s Brief
One of the CockleBur contributors, Dan Ortiz, recently filed this Petitioner's Brief in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, No. 09-1476.
The Question Presented in the case is: Can public employees sue their employers under the Petition Clause for adverse employment actions allegedly resulting from the employees’ petitioning on matters of purely private concern?
Also posted in Supreme Court ( Leave a comment)
Merits Briefs
Tagged Boeing v. United States, Kentucky v. King, Pepper v. United States, Petitioner's Brief, Stern v. Marshal, Sykes v. United States
On Friday, the following merits briefs were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The briefs can be viewed at this link.
The Petitioner's Brief was filed in Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179; Boeing v. United States, No. 09-1302; Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311; and Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1271. A Reply Brief was filed in Pepper v. United States, No. 09-6822.
Posted in Briefs ( Leave a comment)
Petition Raises an Ex Post Facto Challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines
For the past three years there has been a growing circuit split on whether a defendant’s sentence may be increased by using a Federal Sentencing Guidelines manual that was amended after the offense took place and whether such an increase would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Chicago-based attorney Marc Martin filed a petition on Tuesday in United States v. Custable, asking the Court to remedy the circuit split that has become “more pronounced.”
In April of 2005, Frank Custable was indicted on a series of wire and mail fraud offenses, and obstruction of justice.
Also posted in Supreme Court ( 1 Comment)
New Merits Briefs