Yarborough v. Alvarado

In a split decision, the Supreme Court declined to overturn the state court's conclusion about custody because it was not objectively incorrect. The Court noted that there was no precedent that required the use of age in determining whether someone is in police custody (this would change in 2011 with ''J.D.B. v. North Carolina'', which held that age is relevant to determining if someone is in custody). The case has been cited in subsequent Supreme Court decisions as precedent for providing state courts with latitude in making decisions about general or broad rules. Provided by Wikipedia
-
1by Mary Kathryn Abel, Heather Greenwood, Tatiana Kelil, Ruby Guo, Case Brabham, Nola Hylton, Jasmine Wong, Michael Alvarado, Cheryl Ewing, Laura J. Esserman, Judy C. Boughey, Rita A. MukhtarGet full text
Published 2021
article -
2by Amy S. Clark, Christina Yau, Denise M. Wolf, Emanuel F. Petricoin, Laura J. van ‘t Veer, Douglas Yee, Stacy L. Moulder, Anne M. Wallace, A. Jo Chien, Claudine Isaacs, Judy C. Boughey, Kathy S. Albain, Kathleen Kemmer, Barbara B. Haley, Hyo S. Han, Andres Forero-Torres, Anthony Elias, Julie E. Lang, Erin D. Ellis, Rachel Yung, Debu Tripathy, Rita Nanda, Julia D. Wulfkuhle, Lamorna Brown-Swigart, Rosa I. Gallagher, Teresa Helsten, Erin Roesch, Cheryl A. Ewing, Michael Alvarado, Erin P. Crane, Meredith Buxton, Julia L. Clennell, Melissa Paoloni, Smita M. Asare, Amy Wilson, Gillian L. Hirst, Ruby Singhrao, Katherine Steeg, Adam Asare, Jeffrey B. Matthews, Scott Berry, Ashish Sanil, Michelle Melisko, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S. Rugo, Richard B. Schwab, W. Fraser Symmans, Nola M. Hylton, Donald A. Berry, Laura J. Esserman, Angela M. DeMicheleGet full text
Published 2021
article