Legal Opinion

County of Sonoma v. Isbell

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 27, 1978No. 78-440PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied for failure to file petition within time provided by 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c).

Mr. Justice Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart join.

When a petition for certiorari is jurisdictionally untimely, should the Court so indicate in its order denying the writ? I think not, for these reasons: First, since a denial of certio-rari has no precedential value in any event, the notation serves no useful purpose. Second, since the question of timeliness is not always easy to answer, compare Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, with Puget Sound…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Department of Banking of Neb. v. PinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
  2. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. County of KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1924

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. United States v. Billy G. ByersCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1984
  2. Gerald R. Hooper v. D.A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney General of the State of VirginiaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
  3. State v. CraneySupreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  4. Taylor v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Phelan v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1980

29 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