Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell
551 U.S. 205 · Decided June 14, 2007 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell was decided on June 14, 2007 by a vote of 5–4. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Untimely filing” in the Judicial Power area. SCDB codes this decision as formally altering one or more of the Court's own precedents.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 551 U.S. 205 · 127 S. Ct. 2360 · 168 L. Ed. 2d 96 · 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7721
- Docket number
- 06-5306
- Decided
- June 14, 2007
- Argued
- March 26, 2007
- Court era
- Roberts Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority opinion
- Clarence Thomas
- Opinion assigned by
- John G. Roberts Jr.
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Untimely filing
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Legal provision
- Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- Type of law
- Court rules
- Altered precedent
- Yes — formally altered the Court's precedent
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Dissent | |
| Justice Antonin Scalia | Majority | |
| Justice Anthony M. Kennedy | Majority | |
| Justice David H. Souter | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Clarence Thomas | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg | Dissent | |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer | Dissent | |
| Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. | Majority |
Full case caption
Keith Bowles v. Harry Russell, Warden
SCDB identifiers: case 2006-061, docket 2006-061-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Untimely filing”
- Richard F. Allen v. Daniel Siebert
- BP America Production Company v. Rejane Burton
- John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United States
- Jeanne S. Woodford v. Viet Mike Ngo
- James Lockhart v. United States
- Carlos Jimenez v. Nathaniel Quarterman
Cases on the same legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil or Appellate Procedure
- William Erickson v. Barry J. Pardus
- Philippines v. Pimentel
- Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc.
- John D. Ashcroft v. Javaid Iqbal
- Ricky Bell v. Gregory Thompson
- Gonzalez v. Crosby
Same Term, same area (Judicial Power)
- Helen Purcell v. Maria M. Gonzalez
- Reymundo Toledo-Flores v. United States
- BP America Production Company v. Rejane Burton
- Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
- Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley
- Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error