Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeals ruled that the order was constitutional. The California Supreme Court declined to review the case, and on April 24, 2004, Tory filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was granted, briefing followed, and the oral argument took place on March 22 ...
In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of a prerogative writ in England, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review.
Petitioners further argued that even if the less demanding exacting scrutiny test were applied, the California requirement was overly broad and hence unconstitutional. [1] In response, California urged the Court to review the case under the lower standard of exacting scrutiny. The State argued that the request for all Schedule B's was ...
In England, the Administrative Court (part of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice) now issues "quashing orders" rather than writs of certiorari. [11] In the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States grants writs of certiorari "to review questions of law or to correct errors or excesses by lower courts". [12]
The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [a] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.
The Supreme Court appeared likely Monday to put a stop to California's practice of collecting the names and addresses of top donors to charities. The case stems from lawsuits by two conservative ...
Parties wishing to appeal such cases would file a petition for certiorari, which the Court could grant or deny without passing on the merits. [ 3 ] Nonetheless, the number of appeals was a one-way upward ratchet, and the Justices argued that the only way to fix the problem once and for all was to have the Court conduct virtually all of its ...
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.