2011 Supreme Court term

PATRICK WOOD v. KEVIN MILYARD, WARDEN, ET AL.

Dockets 10-9995Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

Guide pending. Verified case metadata and available source documents are shown below while a supported explanation is prepared.

Background and question before the Court

Oral argument began at 11:04 a.m. before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Justice Breyer asked for a precise distinction regarding the brief’s language.

Justice Sotomayor asked whether a waiver is the intentional abandonment of a known right.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg emphasized the principle of party presentation, stating that the party raises the issue and the appellate court is a court of review, not first view.

What each side argues

Petitioner (Patrick Wood) Position

According to Ms. Lord, the State’s reliance on a new‑fangled notion of abandonment under Colorado law would require a hearing and factual development, making the timeliness defense complex and difficult to raise.

According to Kathleen A. Lord, the problems with the rulings urged by the amicus and the State include that AEDPA does not contemplate a wide latitude for the 1‑year federal timing statute of limitations to be resurrected in the courts of appeal.

Respondent (Kevin Milyard, Warden) Position

According to Mr. Domenico, courts are not bound by a State’s failure to properly argue and preserve a procedural bar to a habeas claim, as recognized in Granberry v. Greer.

What happened at oral argument

According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer requested a precise distinction regarding the brief’s language.

Justice Sotomayor asked whether a waiver is the intentional abandonment of a known right.

According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg emphasized the principle of party presentation, noting that the party raises the issue and the appellate court is a court of review.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 6c2bee27456e5b0bda79-r1-6c65bc3a65ac746b.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.