Southern Surety Co. v. Maxwell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “strict compliance with Rule 23(a) is not justified ... where the record clearly reflects a defendant’s waiver of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent”
• holding that the “adoption of [a] district court’s internal rule [was] proscribed by” Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 57
• holding that “strict compliance with Rule 23(a) is not justified . . . where the record clearly reflects a defendant’s waiver of the right is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent”
• reasoning that the government did not breach plea agreement where the promise of a specific sentencing recommendation was “expressly premised on the [defendant’s] ‘tentative’ criminal history”
• “scheduling concerns alone are not of sufficient importance to justify the infringement of prosecutorial discretion” in “charge bargains”
• reversing where only evidence of waiver in record was stipulation signed by defense counsel alone

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).