Kelly Huedepohl

United States Supreme Court (11 summaries)

Blueford v. Arkansas

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a second trial on all charges where the first trial ended in a mistrial, even where the jury reported during the course of its deliberations that it was unanimous against guilt on some of the original charges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Vasquez v. United States

Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Vartelas v. Holder

Application of IIRIRA § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) to convictions entered prior to the passage of IIRIRA imposes a new disability in respect to past events and violates the presumption against the retroactive application of laws in the absence of clear Congressional intent. Additionally, the immigration law in place at the time of conviction is the law that governs the impact of that conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Lafler v. Cooper

The Sixth Amendment's protections extend to plea bargains, and a full and fair trial does not remedy a pretrial violation, even where the trial itself was not prejudiced by the error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Vasquez v. United States

Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard for harmless error review, and whether the standard applied by the Seventh Circuit violated Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.

(The Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., preempts defective design and failure to warn state law tort claims.)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Vartelas v. Holder

Whether INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) can be enforced against lawful permanent residents who, prior to the passage of IIRIRA in 1997, pleaded guilty to an offense identified in INA § 212(a)(2), 8 U.S.C section 1182(a)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Minneci v. Pollard

Where state tort law remedies provide sufficient deterrence and compensation, an Eighth Amendment Bivens action will not be implied against employees of a privately operated federal prison.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC

Whether Congress divested federal district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Vasquez v. United States

Whether it is reversible error in a criminal case for a trial court to admit recordings of a conversation for the truth of the matter where the witness admits the point on which the government seeks to establish bias, where a logical inference is necessary to establish an inconsistent statement, and where the statements otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Lafler v. Cooper

Whether a defendant is entitled to federal habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel provided objectively unreasonable advice that caused the defendant to reject a plea deal, and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy is a court order that the State either offer specific performance of the rejected deal or release the defendant from custody.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (3 summaries)

Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice

Whether state law class actions suits are precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) because a misrepresentation is “made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” where the representation asserts that an uncovered security is backed by safe, liquid, covered securities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Whether federal law preempts state law design-defect claims against generic drug manufacturers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt.

Whether an "exactions taking" occurs under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution when the government actor does not compel dedication of any interest in the real property to the public use, and when the alleged exaction consists of imposition of a monetary obligation as a condition of permit issuance but the permit is never issued.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Back to Top