Legal Opinion
Kowalski v. Tesmer
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 13, 2004No. 03-407PublishedCited by 657 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
This case involves a constitutional challenge to Michigan’s procedure for appointing appellate counsel for indigent defendants who plead guilty. The only challengers before us are two attorneys who seek to invoke the rights of hypothetical indigents to challenge the procedure. We hold that the attorneys lack standing and therefore do not reach the question of the procedure’s constitutionality.
In 1994, Michigan amended its Constitution to provide that “an appeal by an accused who pleads guilty or nolo conten-dere shall be by leave of the court” and not as of right. Mich. Const., Art. I, §20.…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by657 opinions
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Halbert v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Bond v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- W.R. Huff Asset Management Co. v. Deloitte & Touche LLPCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
652 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.