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

appealmotionrespondentwrit of certiorari
appealmotionrespondentwrit of certiorari

Related Cases

Levine v. Levine, 734 So.2d 1191, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D1568
View Case »
U.S. v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247
View Case »
Levine v. Kling, 123 F.3d 580
View Case »
Jewel v. Boxer, 156 Cal.App.3d 171, 203 Cal.Rptr. 13
View Case »
San Diegans for Open Government v. City of San Diego, 247 Cal.App.4th 1306, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 34, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5941, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5453
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 454 U.S. 1092, 102 S.Ct. 658 (Mem), 70 L.Ed.2d 631

Facts

Marshall Field & Co. filed a motion to strike the brief submitted by the Weiss respondents. The case reached the point where a petition for writ of certiorari was presented to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, seeking further review of the matter.

Marshall Field & Co. filed a motion to strike the brief submitted by the Weiss respondents.

Issue

Whether the motion to strike the brief of the Weiss respondents should be granted and whether the petition for writ of certiorari should be accepted.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Rule

The court evaluated the appropriateness of the motion to strike and the criteria for granting certiorari.

Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.

Analysis

The court considered the arguments presented by Marshall Field & Co. regarding the motion to strike and determined that there was insufficient basis to grant the motion. Furthermore, the court assessed the petition for writ of certiorari and concluded that it did not warrant further review.

The court evaluated the appropriateness of the motion to strike and the criteria for granting certiorari.

Conclusion

The court denied the motion to strike the brief and also denied the petition for writ of certiorari, with Justice Blackmun dissenting in favor of granting certiorari.

The court denied the motion to strike the brief and also denied the petition for writ of certiorari.

Who won?

The Weiss respondents prevailed in the case as the court denied the motion to strike their brief and the petition for certiorari.

The Weiss respondents prevailed in the case as the court denied the motion to strike their brief and the petition for certiorari.

You must be