Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

motionamicus curiae

Related Cases

Almeida- Sanchez v. U.S., 411 U.S. 903, 93 S.Ct. 1531 (Mem), 36 L.Ed.2d 192

Facts

The Prison Research Council for the University of Pennsylvania filed a motion to submit an untimely brief as amicus curiae in a case before the court. The court reviewed the motion but ultimately denied it. In a separate motion, the petitioner requested the appointment of counsel, which the court granted, appointing John J. Cleary as co-counsel.

The Prison Research Council for the University of Pennsylvania filed a motion to submit an untimely brief as amicus curiae in a case before the court.

Issue

Whether the court should allow the Prison Research Council to file an untimely brief as amicus curiae.

Rule

The court has discretion to grant or deny motions for the submission of amicus curiae briefs, particularly when they are filed untimely.

Analysis

The court considered the request from the Prison Research Council to file an untimely brief but determined that allowing such a submission was not warranted in this instance. The court emphasized the importance of timely filings and the orderly conduct of proceedings.

The court considered the request from the Prison Research Council to file an untimely brief but determined that allowing such a submission was not warranted in this instance.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion for the Prison Research Council to file an untimely brief but granted the motion for the appointment of counsel for the petitioner.

The motion for the appointment of counsel is granted, and it is ordered that John J. Cleary, Esquire, of San Diego, California, a member of the Bar of this Court, be, and he is hereby, appointed to serve as co-counsel for the petitioner in this case.

Who won?

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner by granting the appointment of counsel, indicating the importance of legal representation in the case.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner by granting the appointment of counsel.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Etter v. State, 679 S.W.2d 511

Holdridge v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 6328776

Terrence Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395, 138 S.Ct. 1518, 200 L.Ed.2d 805, 86 USLW 4265, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4453, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4436, 27 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 250

Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66, 90 S.Ct. 1886, 26 L.Ed.2d 437

California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619, 59 USLW 4559