This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It took me a while to figure out what the final ruling actually was, the intro sentence being: "On certiorari, the USSC affirmed 5-4." Since it's a new section, it shouldn't require me to reference the previous section to realize that the AC ruling was that Payton indeed could apply retroactively and does in this case. However, this section does not specify the extent to which the majority any such case could apply retroactively. Furthermore, the description of White's dissent makes it sound like an assent. Also, what happened to Johnson at the end of the day – was he released? I'm a layman but I'm not new to this – I've read quite a few legal opinions. I'd do the cleanup myself, but I'm asking somebody with better understanding of this to help out because perhaps I'm missing something obvious. SamuelRiv (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
