Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Stokes

• 1989 • 495 U.S. 320 • Rehnquist Court
In Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Stokes (1989), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an inmate's right to access legal resources while in prison. The respondent, Stokes, was a prisoner who had been denied access to certain legal materials by the petitioner and superintendent of his correctional center. He argued that this denial violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and sought damages for these alleged...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1989
Docket: A-795
495 U.S. 320
110 S. Ct. 1880
109 L. Ed. 2d 325
1990 U.S. LEXIS 2551

Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Stokes

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Stokes (1989), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an inmate's right to access legal resources while in prison. The respondent, Stokes, was a prisoner who had been denied access to certain legal materials by the petitioner and superintendent of his correctional center. He argued that this denial violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and sought damages for these alleged violations. The court held that prisoners have no absolute right to any specific law library or legal assistance program; instead they are entitled only to adequate tools for challenging their sentences or conditions of confinement. It also noted that inmates must show actual injury from being unable to pursue a non-frivolous claim before they can receive compensation for such denials. This decision clarified how courts should evaluate claims about inadequate access to legal resources in prisons: it is not enough simply for an inmate to allege he has been denied some particular resource; he must demonstrate how this denial has actually harmed him.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Stokes (1989), Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding habeas corpus petitions. He contended that under previous rulings, federal courts were obligated to review state court decisions de novo when constitutional rights were at stake. In this case, he believed that Stokes' Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel had been violated due to his attorney’s failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence during sentencing in his capital murder trial. Furthermore, Justice Blackmun criticized the majority for ignoring significant procedural errors made by the Missouri Supreme Court in its handling of Stokes' appeal and post-conviction proceedings which could have affected their judgment on whether or not there was ineffective assistance of counsel.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: May 11, 1990
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms