October Term 2011 · Docket 10-63
Does a lawyer's abandonment excuse a missed filing deadline?
the sides that brought the case seek relief for a missed deadline caused by lawyer abandonment. the opposing sides argue the state must enforce strict filing rules.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Neiman argued Maples advocates principles incompatible with the justice system.
Mr. Garre cited agency principles from Justice Story's time.
Mr. Garre referenced the Holland decision and its application.
Justice Scalia questioned who says local attorneys have no responsibility.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a lawyer's abandonment excuses a missed filing deadline. the sides that brought the case want relief for a missed deadline caused by lawyer abandonment. the opposing sides want the state to enforce strict filing rules. The Court must decide if the state bears responsibility for a lawyer's failure to act.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 4, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-9
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want relief for a missed deadline caused by lawyer abandonment.
the opposing sides want the state to enforce strict filing rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the state bears responsibility for a lawyer's failure to act.
the opposing sides argue the state should not bear responsibility for a lawyer's failure.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked how a clerk knows a lawyer is inactive.
Justice Ginsburg asked who the lawyer disclaimed to the clerk.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
Why it matters
This case defines the state's duty to monitor lawyer activity. It sets the standard for excusing missed deadlines. It clarifies the role of local counsel in state courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 47-3 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 47-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 7-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 7-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 15-21 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 15-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 5-9 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 5-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 41-7 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 41-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-45 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 23-45 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 23-45
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.