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.
Charros v. Massachusetts; Haywood v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., et al.; Akaoma v. Supershuttle International Corp. et al.; Leavitt v. San Jacinto Unified School District; Zack v. United States; Harris v. United States; Phillips v. United States; Chaffo v. United States, 2012 — 566 U.S. 935 · caselaw · US
General
Charros v. Massachusetts; Haywood v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., et al.; Akaoma v. Supershuttle International Corp. et al.; Leavitt v. San Jacinto Unified School District; Zack v. United States; Harris v. United States; Phillips v. United States; Chaffo v. United States
566 U.S. 935·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. 11-8669.
No. 11-8695.
No. 11-8802.
Charros v. Massachusetts. Haywood v. Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., et al. Akaoma v. Supershuttle International Corp. et al. Leavitt v. San Jacinto Unified School District. Zack v. United States. Harris v. United States. Phillips v. United States. Chaffo v. United States.
[MAJORITY]
App. Ct. Mass.;
C. A. 4th Cir.;
C. A. 4th Cir.;
No. 11-8896.
No. 11-9080.
No. 11-9228.
No. 11-9289.
No. 11-9325.
Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2;
C. A. 6th Cir.;
C. A. 6th Cir.;
C. A. 10th Cir.; and
C. A. 3d Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed informa pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until May 7, 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.