Law Commons^™

03-29-1988 Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

This case involves an attempt by the State of Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid to individuals who are incarcerated in Arkansas prisons.

03-24-1988 Correspondence From Brennan To Rehnquist, William J. Brennan

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Dear Chief,

Please join me.

03-22-1988 Correspondence From Marshall To Rehnquist, Thurgood Marshall

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Dear Chief:

I agree with your Per Curiam.

03-21-1988 Correspondence From Kennedy To Rehnquist, Anthony M. Kennedy

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Dear Chief,

As you may recall, petitioner's counsel informed us at oral argument that because Shelton did not complete a necessary IFP affidavit, his petition for certiorari was not filed by the clerk. Johnson was a party in the proceedings but did not seek certiorari. In view of the jurisdictional deficiencies, do you still wish the per curiam to cover Shelton and Johnson?

03-21-1988 Correspondence From Scalia To Rehnquist, Antonin G. Scalia

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Dear Chief,

I share Tony's concerns. Could not our discussion of Rose v . Rose do the job well enough?

03-18-1988 Justice Rehnquist, Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

This case involves an attempt by the State of Arkansas to attach certain federal benefits paid to individuals who are incarcerated in Arkansas prisons.

03-04-1988 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Harry A. Blackmun's notes from oral argument.

03-02-1988 Notes From Oral Argument, Harry A. Blackmun

Bennett v. Arksansas, 485 U.S. 395 (1988)

Harry A. Blackmun's handwritten notes from oral argument.