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.
Toforest Onesha JOHNSON, petitioner, v. ALABAMA., 2017 — 137 S. Ct. 2292 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Toforest Onesha JOHNSON, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.
137 S. Ct. 2292198 L. Ed. 2d 720·Supreme Court of the United States·2017
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
Toforest Onesha JOHNSON, petitioner,
v.
ALABAMA.
No. 16-7835.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 26, 2017.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief filed on May 10, 2017.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom Justice THOMAS, Justice ALITO and Justice GORSUCH join, dissenting: The Court vacates the judgment below in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief. That position is that the Court should vacate a state court judgment for further consideration in light of Ex parte Beckworth, 190 So.3d 571 (Ala.2013). Beckworth is a state court decision that turns entirely on state procedural law. It was expressly called to the attention of the state courts, which declined to upset the decision below in light of it. Reply to Pet. for Cert. 2, n. 1. The question presented concerns state collateral review-purely a creature of state law that need not be provided at all. Whatever one's view on the propriety of our practice of vacating judgments based on positions of the parties, see Hicks v. United States, 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2000, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2017), the Court's decision to vacate this state court judgment is truly extraordinary. I respectfully dissent.