Remove Court Decisions Remove Lawyers Remove Statute
article thumbnail

US Supreme Court rules in favor of healthcare provider in identity theft dispute

JURIST

United States that in order to constitute aggravated identity theft, the use of a person’s identity must be at the “crux” of what makes the conduct criminal, reversing a lower court decision. The opinion provides analogies including “a lawyer who rounds up her hours from 2.9

article thumbnail

Divided court restricts prisoners’ ability to pursue claims that their lawyers were incompetent

SCOTUSBlog

Share Two men on Arizona’s death row are not entitled to present new evidence in federal court to support their arguments that their trial lawyers bungled their cases, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 6-3 decision. In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court sided with Arizona. “[O]nly

Lawyers 113
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court hears arguments in firearms possession cases

JURIST

United States the Court held that in order to convict someone under the statute, the government must prove both that a defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to a category of persons prohibited from possessing firearms. Decisions in both cases should come this summer. Two years ago in Rehaif v.

Court 203
article thumbnail

SCOTUS Narrows Reach of Identity Fraud Statute

Constitutional Law Reporter

Supreme Court narrowed the scope of a federal aggravated identity theft statute. Because the crux of Durbin’s overbilling was inflating the value of services actually provided, and the patient’s means of identification was an ancillary part of the Medicaid billing process, the statute was not violated. In Durbin v.

Statute 52
article thumbnail

Restitution, medical malpractice, and a capital appeal

SCOTUSBlog

In 1993, William Neilly was sentenced in Michigan state court to life without the possibility of parole for a homicide he committed as a juvenile. Because of intervening Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the imposition of no-parole life sentences for juvenile offenders, he was resentenced to a lesser sentence.

Court 113
article thumbnail

In “odd” clash of statutory text and habeas precedent, three conservative justices seem undecided

SCOTUSBlog

Share On Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Shinn v. Ramirez and Jones , two death penalty cases that will determine whether prisoners may develop new evidence to support claims that their lawyers were constitutionally ineffective at trial. But a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Martinez v.

Statute 104
article thumbnail

Traffic accident involving Florida girl leads to Medicaid-reimbursement dispute

SCOTUSBlog

In that case, the Medicaid statute obligates the state to “seek reimbursement” from the person who committed the tort, and it requires (in 42 U.S.C. Prior Supreme Court decisions have made clear that the state is entitled only to the portion of the settlement attributable to medical expenses.

Tort 104