From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona

U.S.
May 4, 1987
481 U.S. 1042 (1987)

Summary

recognizing that an "attorney has expanded duties when representing a client whose condition prevents him from exercising proper judgment."

Summary of this case from Harries v. Bell

Opinion

No. 86-1546.

May 4, 1987, October TERM, 1986.


Sup. Ct. Ariz. Motion of Ak-Chin Indian Community et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Certiorari denied. JUSTICE O'CONNOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition. Reported below: 152 Ariz. 134, 730 P. 2d 843.


Summaries of

Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona

U.S.
May 4, 1987
481 U.S. 1042 (1987)

recognizing that an "attorney has expanded duties when representing a client whose condition prevents him from exercising proper judgment."

Summary of this case from Harries v. Bell
Case details for

Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona

Case Details

Full title:CENTRAL MACHINERY CO. v. ARIZONA

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 4, 1987

Citations

481 U.S. 1042 (1987)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Black

Successful establishment of a Brady claim requires three findings: (1) that evidence was suppressed; (2) that…

Engberg v. Meyer

The federal courts of appeal have considered the rule in Bagley to be retroactive. Trujillo v. Sullivan, 815…