Forbidden Cases

While competitors may view the actual opinions (of the case itself and any prior or subsequent judicial opinions), they may not read any briefs, news articles, oral argument transcripts, or listen to any oral arguments (e.g. from oyez.org) for these cases. Pursuant to Competition Rule 3(d), competitors have an affirmative duty to report any questionable cases which appear to touch squarely upon the issue presented in the question for review. Any questions regarding Forbidden Cases and associated materials must be addressed via e-mail to Professor Bill Fernholz (mailto:wfernhholz@law.berkeley.edu) and Competition Co-Directors Joel Wallace and Brent K. Nakamura (mcbaine.competition@gmail.com).

Forbidden Cases (Updated Constantly)

i. Lee v. Louisiana, 129 S.Ct. 130, 172 L.Ed.2d 37, State v. Lee, 964 So.2d 967, cert. denied, 977 So.2d 896

ii. Bertrand v. Louisiana, 6 So. 3d 738

iii. Bowen v. Oregon, 168 P.3d 1208

iv. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404

v. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356

vi. Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979)

Reminder: Competitors may view the actual opinions, i.e. the majority, dissenting, concurring, and any other judicially-issued opinion or order (e.g. Justice Stewart's dissenting opinion in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. at 414-15), that constitute the forbidden cases. What competitors may not do, however, is read any party briefs, amicus curiae briefs, transcripts or recordings of oral arguments, news articles, and similar materials associated with these cases (e.g. the Reply Brief for Petitioners in the Apodaca v. Oregon case, 1971 WL 134172, or the oral argument transcript and audio ).