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

Related Cases

Thomas v. Powell, 534 U.S. 951, 122 S.Ct. 347 (Mem), 151 L.Ed.2d 262, 70 USLW 3092, 70 USLW 3259, 70 USLW 3267

Facts

The case arose from a legal dispute that was previously adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The specifics of the underlying case are not detailed in the provided information, but it culminated in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The case arose from a legal dispute that was previously adjudicated in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Rule

The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny petitions for writs of certiorari.

Analysis

In considering the petition, the Supreme Court evaluated the arguments presented and determined that the case did not warrant further review. The denial of certiorari indicates that the Court found no substantial federal question or conflict among the circuits that required its intervention.

In considering the petition, the Supreme Court evaluated the arguments presented and determined that the case did not warrant further review.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, thereby upholding the decision of the lower court.

Who won?

The party that prevailed was the respondent in the original case, as the denial of certiorari allowed the lower court's ruling to stand.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1997-2 Trade Cases P 71,962, 39 Fed.R.Serv.3d 188

Tallon v. Committee on Professional Standards, Third Judicial Dept., 86 A.D.2d 897, 447 N.Y.S.2d 50

State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Lee, 193 Cal.App.4th 34, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 183, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2735, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3170

In re Kiley, 459 Mass. 645, 947 N.E.2d 1

Meehan v. Hopps, 45 Cal.2d 213, 288 P.2d 267