Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Warren v. Commissioner

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 5, 2002No. Nos. 00-71217, 14924-98Published

1ConcurrenceReinhardt, Circuit Judge

When judges ask for supplemental briefing on an issue, it does not mean, as the dissent mistakenly asserts, that they have decided to reach a particular result. The purpose of requesting briefing in this case is to obtain more information in order to make a more informed and reasoned decision about whether to address an issue and, if so, how the issue should be resolved. Information, speech, and truth do not hurt; they only shed light. That is a fundamental tenet not only of our judicial system but of our democracy. It is possible, however, that in some instances those who do not want to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dickerson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. United States National Bank v. Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Texas Monthly, Inc. v. BullockSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. United States of America,plaintiff-Appellant v. Alameda Gateway Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API