Five Star Elec. Corp. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that \ Ruiz did not expressly abrogate [its prior caselaw] as applied to all Brady material\ but noting it creates uncertainty about whether exculpatory material needed to be produced pre-plea
• explaining that the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Ruiz creates uncertainty about pre-plea production of exculpatory material
• explaining that the standard of review for state court decisions under § 2254(d) — ““[u]nreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law’” — is even more deferential than “clear error” review
• considering that Ruiz’s reasoning likely also extends to exculpatory evidence
• declining to address hypothetical issue of suppression of exculpatory evidence, but speculating that “even if” suppressed impeachment evidence had been exculpatory, Ruiz likely applied to prevent challenge for concealment of such evidence
• “[t]he government's obligation [under Brady] is pertinent not only to an accused's preparation for trial but also to his determination of whether or not to plead guilty.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).