Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealrespondentwrit of certiorari
appealrespondentwrit of certiorari

Related Cases

Stein v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 425 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 251
View Case »
In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
Peterson v. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP, 676 F.3d 594, 67 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 418, 56 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 79, Bankr. L. Rep. P 82,195
View Case »
Daynard v. Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, P.A., 290 F.3d 42
View Case »
Direct Sales Co. v. U.S., 131 F.2d 835
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Otto v. United States, 469 U.S. 1196, 105 S.Ct. 978 (Mem), 83 L.Ed.2d 980

Facts

The case arose from a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The specifics of the underlying case that led to the appeal are not detailed in the provided information, but it is clear that the petitioners sought higher court intervention to challenge the appellate court's ruling.

The case arose from a decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit.

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Third Circuit.

Rule

The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny petitions for writs of certiorari based on the presence of substantial federal questions.

The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny petitions for writs of certiorari based on the presence of substantial federal questions.

Analysis

In this case, the Supreme Court evaluated the petition for certiorari and determined that the issues presented did not meet the threshold for review. The court's denial suggests that the lower court's ruling was deemed sufficient and did not raise significant legal questions that warranted further examination.

In this case, the Supreme Court evaluated the petition for certiorari and determined that the issues presented did not meet the threshold for review.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the decision of the Third Circuit.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the decision of the Third Circuit.

Who won?

The prevailing party is the respondent, as the denial of the petition means the lower court's ruling stands.

The prevailing party is the respondent, as the denial of the petition means the lower court's ruling stands.

You must be