From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amatel v. Reno

U.S.
Jun 24, 1999
527 U.S. 1035 (1999)

Summary

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Brownlee v. Porter

Opinion

No. 98-1452.

June 24, 1999.


ORDERS

C.A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 156 F. 3d 192.


Summaries of

Amatel v. Reno

U.S.
Jun 24, 1999
527 U.S. 1035 (1999)

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Brownlee v. Porter

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Meador v. C.S.P. Dental Annex

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Brownlee v. Porter

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Meador v. C.S.P. Dental Annex

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Johnson v. Runnels

holding that either the district court or the moving party must inform a pro se prisoner of the requirements of Rule 56

Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Flohr

recognizing a limited exception to this general rule when the defendant is brought into Indiana under a Writ or other form of temporary custody, yet the State voluntarily relinquishes custody to another jurisdiction before bringing the defendant to trial

Summary of this case from Howard v. State

noting handicaps faced by prisoners acting pro se in complying with procedural requirements

Summary of this case from Whalem/Hunt v. Early

noting that for Criminal Rule 4(C) purposes, the days a defendant was incarcerated on charges which are later dismissed and re-filed count toward the State's time limit for bringing a defendant to trial

Summary of this case from James v. State
Case details for

Amatel v. Reno

Case Details

Full title:AMATEL ET AL. v. RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Jun 24, 1999

Citations

527 U.S. 1035 (1999)

Citing Cases

Stinson, v. State

"The one year period begins with the date criminal charges are filed against the defendant or with the arrest…

Shaver v. Runnels

divisions and has determined that no Klingele, infra, notice was provided to plaintiff either at the time…