Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Fairey v. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.; Thomas v. Texas; Paul v. South Carolina Department of Transportation et al.; and Paul v. Buckles et al.; Savarirayan v. White County Community Hospital et al.; Ray v. Nash et al.; Robinson v. Donahoe, Postmaster General; Wright v. United States, 2012 — 565 U.S. 1194 · caselaw · US
General
Fairey v. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.; Thomas v. Texas; Paul v. South Carolina Department of Transportation et al.; and Paul v. Buckles et al.; Savarirayan v. White County Community Hospital et al.; Ray v. Nash et al.; Robinson v. Donahoe, Postmaster General; Wright v. United States
565 U.S. 1194·Supreme Court of the United States·2012
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 11-7185.
No. 11-7878.
No. 11-7921.
No. 11-7975.
No. 11-8161.
No. 11-8242.
No. 11-8430.
Fairey v. Tucker, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. Thomas v. Texas. Paul v. South Carolina Department of Transportation et al.; and Paul v. Buckles et al. Savarirayan v. White County Community Hospital et al. Ray v. Nash et al. Robinson v. Donahoe, Postmaster General. Wright v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
C. A. 4th Cir.;
Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.;
Ct. App. S. C.;
C. A. 6th Cir.;
C. A. 5th Cir.;
C. A. 4th Cir.; and
C. A. 7th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until March 13, 2012, within which to pay the docketing fees required by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.