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.

09-25-1987 Clerk's Memo, Unknown

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

Views of SG requested ad received, 9/22/87... The SG concludes that the decision of the Ark. Supreme Court is clearly wrong. It violates the plain language of the statutes, and the facts of this case cannot properly be distinguished from Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board, 409 U.S. 413 (1973), in which that Court unanimously held that the Social Security statute means what it says; the stat may not seize Social Security benefits. In that case, that state tried to recoup payments to a welfare recipient.

02-11-1987 Preliminary Memorandum, David G. Leitch

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

SUMMARY: Petrs contend that the Arkansas Supreme Court erred in holding that social security and veterans' benefits may be included in a prisoner's "estate" for purposes of a state law requiring contributions by pr is one rs with estates to pay the costs of their incarceration.

07-01-1986 Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff 's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984).

07-01-1986 Justice Brennan, Concurring, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN for a unanimous Court, concurring in part.

06-30-1986 Correspondence From Blackmun To Brennan, Harry A. Blackmun

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Bill:

I, of course, join you per curiam.

06-30-1986 Justice Brennan, Dissenting, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting in part.

06-30-1986 Justice Brennan, Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff 's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984). We …

06-28-1986 Justice White, Concurring, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring.

06-27-1986 Correspondence From White To Brennan, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Bill,

I join your per curiam opinion in this case. I am making a change or two in my concurrence.

06-27-1986 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

I recommend you join the per curiam. I assume from the circulations that you're still counted as being with JUSTICE BRENNAN all the way .

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Per Curiam, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners' action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff's discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984).

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Dissenting, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting in part.

06-27-1986 Justice Brennan, Concurring, William J. Brennan

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE BRENNAN for a unanimous Court, concurring in part.

06-26-1986 Correspondence From Stevens To Marshall, John Paul Stevens

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Thurgood:

Please join me.

06-26-1986 Justice Marshall, Dissenting, Thurgood Marshall

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

On all too many occasions in recent years, I have felt compelled to express my dissatisfaction with this Court's readiness to dispose summarily of petitions for certiorari on the merits without affording the parties prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U. S. --, -- (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Cuyahoga Valley R. Co. v. Transportation Union, 474 U. S. --, - - (1985) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting); Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U. S. 111, 120-121 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). "[B]y deciding cases summarily, without benefit of oral …

06-25-1986 Justice White, Concurring, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE POWELL, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, concurring.

06-18-1986 Correspondence From Burger To White, Warren E. Burger

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron:

I join your June 17 draft.

06-18-1986 Correspondence From White To Powell, Byron R. White

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

Dear Lewis,

Please join me.

06-18-1986 Clerk Memo, Pamela S. Karlan

Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255 (1986)

This is the case in which JUSTICE POWELL has drafted the per curiam on Batson retroactivity. The response has finally arrived.

06-17-1986 Justice White, Concurring And Dissenting, Byron R. White

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

JUSTICE WHITE, with whom JUSTICE POWELL. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join. concurring in part and dissenting in part.

06-16-1986 Correspondence From Rehnquist To White, William H. Rehnquist

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron,

Please join me in your opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part .

06-16-1986 Correspondence From O'Connor To White, Sandra Day O'Connor

Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)

Dear Byron,

Please join me in your opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.