No. 22-7719
Joseph J. Buttercase v. James Martin Davis, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: actual-innocence attorney-fees attorney-misconduct breach-of-contract civil-rights criminal-defendant criminal-procedure due-process ex-parte-communication fourteenth-amendment legal-malpractice standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess FirstAmendment
DueProcess FirstAmendment
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether it is unconstitutional to require a criminal defendant to prove actual innocence to recover funds paid to his former defense attorney who never performed all agreed upon services?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether it is unconstitutional to require a criminal defendant to prove actual innocence to recover funds paid to his former defense attorney who never performed all agreed upon services? 2. Whether it is unconstitutional for a trial judge to have ex parte communications with an attorney defendant outside presence of the plaintiff who is the attorney's former client? i
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-07-24
Waiver of right of respondent James M. Davis, et al. to respond filed.
2023-07-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-05-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2023)
Attorneys
James M. Davis, et al.
Steven D. Davidson — Baird, Holm, et al., Respondent
Steven D. Davidson — Baird, Holm, et al., Respondent