Sentences with phrase «certiorari review»

He has sought United States Supreme Court certiorari review in several federal criminal cases.

Cautioning that a departure from the essential requirements of law is «something more than a simple legal error,» the court said there must be a violation of a «clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice» to warrant certiorari review.

[15] Thus, «in addition to case law dealing with the same issue of law, an interpretation or application of a statute, a procedural rule, or a constitutional provision may be the basis for granting certiorari review.»

Not exact matches

It's wonderful that the production team has revived a judicial action that is ultimately heroic, ground - shaking, celebrating the good work of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its representative lawyers noting that only one out of four hundred cases is even accepted for review, i.e. certiorari.

We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1068 (1994), to consider whether Oregon's limited judicial review of the size of punitive damages awards is consistent with our decision in Has lip.

However, a court may reduce (modify) to include any of the requirements relating to probation and community control, a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days of its imposition; after the receipt by the court of a mandate issued by the appellate court upon affirmance of the judgment and / or sentence upon an original appeal; after receipt by the court of a certified copy of an order of the appellate court dismissing an original appeal from the judgment and / or sentence; or if further appellate review is sought in a higher court or in successively higher courts, after the highest state or federal court to which a timely appeal has been taken under authority of law, or when a petition for certiorari has been timely filed under authority of law, has written an order of affirmance or an order dismissing the appeal and / or denying certiorari.

Basically, when a court of appeals makes a decision that one of the parties thinks is wrong, the party files a petition for a writ of certiorari (or a «cert petition,» for short) to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the court of appeals» decision.

Justice Kennedy was talking about how law review case comments generally come out too late to be of use to the Court (especially in the context of deciding whether to grant certiorari in a case).

We denied certiorari on the original application for review.

I probably should have noted this when it came out, but on October 28, 2015 the South Carolina Supreme Court, in Hudson v. Hudson, 414 S.C. 352, 778 S.E. 2d 482 (2015), dismissed as improvidently granted the writ of certiorari it issued to review the Court of Appeals opinion in Hudson v. Hudson, 408 S.C. 76, 757 S.E. 2d 727 (Ct..

The Court granted certiorari to review whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of determining the patentability of...

As it announced in August, Samsung has filed a petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) today in its almost five - year - old litigation with Apple.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari (agreed to review the lower court's decision) in the Tyson Foods case on June 8, 2015.

this Court take notice of cases that meet the technical prerequisites of § 1252; in other cases where an Act of Congress is held unconstitutional by a federal court, review in this Court is available only by writ of certiorari.

Lawyers will be well advised to review this most recent Supreme Court decision before advising their clients to pursue petitions for writs of certiorari of discovery orders which do not involve claims of privilege.

More than two months ago, the Supreme Court of the United States granted Samsung's petition for writ of certiorari (request for top - court review) regarding design patent damages, which was supported by Google, Facebook and other tech giants.

Petition for certiorari to review an order of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, 42 Off.Gaz.

In a somewhat surprising decision, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 12, 2017 to hear a challenge to the legality of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings implemented by the Leahy - Smith America Invents Act in 2012.

Some of the more cryptic opinions to come out of the South Carolina Supreme Court simply state «We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals» decision in [case name].

The Court granted certiorari to review whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of determining the patentability of some, but not all, claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review violates the America Invents Act.

The Alabama Supreme Court held that it could not consider the constitutional issues underlying the contempt judgment which related to the power of the State to order production of membership lists because review by certiorari was limited to instances

«It is the established rule of this Court that the proper method of reviewing a judgment for civil contempt of the kind here involved is by a petition for common law writ of certiorari...»

The SCOTUSblog has published Samsung's reply brief in support of its petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) in Apple's design patents case.

Apple has just responded to Samsung's mid-December petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) regarding two legal questions concerning design patents and, in the same document, to amicus curiae («friend of the court») briefs from major industry players, many IP law professors and various public interest advocates, all of whom agree with Samsung that the top U.S. court should take a look at this matter.

APPEAL from, and certiorari (309 U.S. 626) to review, a judgment which sustained the conviction of all the defendants on one count of an information and the conviction of one of the defendants on another count.

[Footnote 2] To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari.

The only time a federal court can review that ruling is if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to review a decision by a state supreme court either on the merits, or by denying certiorari at the state level.

questions of «scope of review» and the «face of the record» rule had arisen even before the writ of error was clearly distinguished from certiorari.

(U.S.)-- Successfully argued that the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act does not toll the statute of limitations in civil False Claims Act cases; persuaded Supreme Court to grant review on issue despite the absence of a circuit split and after the United States, in a Court - invited amicus brief, argued that certiorari should be denied

On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Spokeo Inc.'s petition for writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's most recent decision in... Continue Reading