Court notice and appeal deadlines
Williams v. Holt
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Debbie Williams asked the Supreme Court to review her claim that Tennessee’s appellate deadlines violated due process because, she says, the court’s notice process and her homelessness and mail-handling circumstances kept her from learning of an appellate opinion in time to seek review.
- Who it affects
- Williams did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court did not decide whether the notice process violated her due-process rights.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied the petition), so it did not decide whether her rights were violated.
Williams says a Tennessee appellate opinion was returned unopened and that homelessness and mail-handling circumstances kept her from learning of it in time to seek review.
The dispute centers on whether Tennessee could enforce its deadline in Williams's circumstances, which she says prevented timely notice.
Question presented
Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a state to enforce appellate deadlines and deny rehearing and further review where the court’s own notice process caused the appellate opinion to be returned unopened, the petitioner’s homelessness and mail handling circumstances made effective notice impossible before the mandate issued, and the resulting untimeliness was caused not by the petitioner but by the court’s failure to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to seek review.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.