Supreme Court of the United States
Danforth v. Minnesota
This writing
- Type
- Concurrence
- Filed
- Feb. 20, 2008
- Case
- Danforth v. Minnesota
- Case status
- Decided
Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.
Opening text
The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.
Justice Scalia concurred with the plurality’s judgment because he disagreed with the substantive rule announced in Scheiner, but he did not agree with the plurality’s reasoning. After stating that his views on retroactivity diverged from the plurality’s “in a fundamental way,” Justice Scalia explained: “I share [the dissent’s] perception that prospective decisionmaking is incompatible with…
Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.
Other writings in this case
| Type | Author | Filed |
|---|---|---|
| Opinion of the Court | Not attributed | Feb. 20, 2008 |
| Dissent | Not attributed | Feb. 20, 2008 |