Jackson v. Hobbs
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Citation | Jackson v. Hobbs, 132 S.Ct. 548, 181 L. Ed. 2d 395, 565 U.S. 1013 (2011) |
| Decision Date | 07 November 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–9647.,10–9647. |
| Parties | Kuntrell JACKSON, petitioner, v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction. |
Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted. The case is to be argued in tandem with No. 10–9646, Miller v. Alabama.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
Commonwealth v. Batts
... ... Alabama , 565 U.S. 1013, 132 S.Ct. 548, 181 L.Ed.2d 395 (2011) (per curiam), and Jackson v. Hobbs , 565 U.S. 1013, 132 S.Ct. 548, 181 L.Ed.2d 395 (2011) (per curiam), decided together , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Coia
... ... I, § 13. Following oral arguments, th[e Supreme] Court again reserved consideration, this time pending disposition of Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs, which were to be argued in tandem. See Miller v. Alabama, 565 U.S. 1013, 132 S.Ct. 548, 181 L.Ed.2d 395 (2011) (per curiam ); Jackson v ... ...
-
Miller v. Alabama
... ... Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama granted. The case is to be argued in tandem with No. 10–9647, Jackson v. Hobbs, Dir., AR ... ...