Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Davis Vs. Goodson

Davis vs Goodson

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1983
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/105552

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
459 U.S. 1154
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Davis

Respondent

Goodson

Excerpt

davis v. goodson - 459 u.s. 1154 (1983) u.s. supreme court davis v. goodson , 459 u.s. 1154 (1983) 459 u.s. 1154 james e. davis v. john w. goodson no. 82-490 supreme court of the united states january 17, 1983 on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of arkansas. the petition for writ of certiorari is denied. justice stevens, concurring in the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. because the petition for a writ of certiorari does not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the supreme court of arkansas, i believe the court correctly denies the writ. justice marshall, dissenting. petitioner was summarily held in contempt for advising his client that he had a privilege not to submit to a breathalyzer test. in citing petitioner for contempt, the judge made no finding that the advice was given in bad faith. given the absence of such a finding, i would grant certiorari to decide whether petitioner's conviction and sentence for contempt page 459 u.s. 1154 , 1155 are constitutionally infirm in light of this court's decision in maness v. meyers, 419 u.s. 449 (1975), where we held that "an advocate is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, in good faith, to assert the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding embracing the power to compel testimony." id., at 468. see also id., at 472, 95 s. ct., at 598 (stewart, j., concurring in the result); in re watts, 190 u.s. 1, 29 , 725 (1903) ("if an attorney acts in good faith and in the honest belief that his advice is well founded and in the just interests of his client, he cannot be held liable for error in judgment").

Full Judgment

DAVIS v. GOODSON - 459 U.S. 1154 (1983)
U.S. Supreme Court DAVIS v. GOODSON , 459 U.S. 1154 (1983)

459 U.S. 1154

James E. DAVIS
v.
John W. GOODSON
No. 82-490

Supreme Court of the United States

January 17, 1983

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

Justice STEVENS, concurring in the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari.

Because the petition for a writ of certiorari does not affirmatively show that a federal question was presented to or decided by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, I believe the Court correctly denies the writ.

Justice MARSHALL, dissenting.

Petitioner was summarily held in contempt for advising his client that he had a privilege not to submit to a breathalyzer test. In citing petitioner for contempt, the judge made no finding that the advice was given in bad faith. Given the absence of such a finding, I would grant certiorari to decide whether petitioner's conviction and sentence for contempt

Page 459 U.S. 1154 , 1155

are constitutionally infirm in light of this Court's decision in Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449 (1975), where we held that "an advocate is not subject to the penalty of contempt for advising his client, in good faith, to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in any proceeding embracing the power to compel testimony." Id., at 468. See also id., at 472, 95 S. Ct., at 598 (Stewart, J., concurring in the result); In re Watts, 190 U.S. 1, 29 , 725 (1903) ("if an attorney acts in good faith and in the honest belief that his advice is well founded and in the just interests of his client, he cannot be held liable for error in judgment").

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial