The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Writ Improvidently Granted Decisions

Adams v. Florida Power Corp.

May disparate impact claims be brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967?

The Court did not answer the question. In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Adams v. Robertson

Does the Supreme Court of Alabama's approval of the certification and settlement of a class action lawsuit, whose class members were not afforded the right to opt out of the class or the settlement, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The Court noted that the Alabama Supreme Court did not expressly address the question on which certiorari was granted and that the petitioners had failed to establish that they had properly presented the issue to that court. Therefore, the Court concluded that it could not reach the question presented without unbalancing our dual system of government to "disturb the finality of state judgments on a federal ground that the state court did not have occasion to consider."

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta

Did the Court of Appeals misapply the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination? Is the U.S. Department of Transportation's current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. After Adarand asserted that it was only challenging the rules pertaining to the direct procurement of DOT funds for highway construction on federal lands rather than any part of the DOT's DBE program as it pertained to state and local procurement, the Court concluded that the posture of the case had changed. The Court reasoned that such a shift required dismissal as it had not been addressed whether the various race-based programs applicable to such direct procurement could satisfy strict scrutiny and that reaching the merits of such a challenge would require a threshold examination whether the company had standing to challenge such direct-procurement provisions, which was not in the writ of certiorari.

Atchley v. California

No details yet.

Baldonado v. California

No details yet.

Belcher v. Stengel

No details yet.

Binks Mfg. Co. v. Ransburg Corp.

No details yet.

Bostic v. United States

No details yet.

Brotherhood, Ry. & Steamship Clerks, v. United Air Lines

No details yet.

Bruno v. Pennsylvania

No details yet.

Bullock v. South Carolina

No details yet.

Burrell v. Mcray

No details yet.

Cassius v. Arizona

No details yet.

Cavanaugh v. Roller

No details yet.

Cerbone v. Conway

No details yet.

Consolidated Freightways Corp. v. Kassel

No details yet.

Conway v. Adult Authority

No details yet.

Cook v. Hudson

No details yet.

Diamond v. Louisiana

No details yet.

District of Columbia v. Tri County Industries

Must federal appellate courts conduct a "more searching inquiry" than "abuse of discretion" when reviewing a federal trial court's decision to grant a new trial?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. The dismissal had the effect of leaving in place the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that new-trial grants demand a "more searching inquiry" than the usual abuse-of-discretion review and reinstating the appellate court's decision that upheld the first jury's verdict that awarded Tri County $5 million in damages.

Dresner v. City Of Tallahassee

No details yet.

Drew Municipal School Dist. v. Andrews

No details yet.

EEOC v. FLRA

No details yet.

Estes v. Metropolitan Branches, Dallas NAACP

No details yet.

Finley v. Murray

No details yet.

Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley

Is the amount-in-controversy requirement of the federal diversity statute satisfied where a class representative seeks an injunction that would cost the defendant more than $75,000 to implement whether the injunction applies to one plaintiff or all class members?

In a per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Grimmett, Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Siragusa v. Brown

Does the four-year time limit on a civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 begin after a pattern of racketeering activity has been discovered by the plaintiff?

Unanswered. The unanimous Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Hadley v. United States

No details yet.

Hanner v. Demarcus

No details yet.

Harbison-Walker Refractories, v. Brieck

No details yet.

Heider, Administrator v. Michigan Sugar Co.

No details yet.

Hester v. Illinois

No details yet.

Hicks v. District Of Columbia

No details yet.

Hinkle v. New England Ins. Co.

No details yet.

Holder v. Banks

No details yet.

Holt v. Alleghany Corp.

No details yet.

Howell v. Mississippi

1.) In death penalty cases can a state court refuse to give a jury the option of finding a defendant guilty of at least one lesser offense if it is recognized by state law and supported by evidence? 2.) Was Howell's federal constitutional claim properly raised before the Mississippi Supreme Court?

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court dismissed the case because Howell had not first raised his federal constitutional claims in state court.

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA

No details yet.

Hughes Tool Co. v. TWA

No details yet.

Hunter v. Dean

No details yet.

In Re Zipkin

No details yet.

Iowa Beef Packers, Inc. v. Thompson

No details yet.

Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp.

No details yet.

Johnson v. Massachusetts

No details yet.

Jones v. Hildebrant

No details yet.

Joseph v. Indiana

No details yet.

Kimbrough v. United States

No details yet.

Kissinger v. Halperin

No details yet.

Lynaugh v. Petty

No details yet.

Maness v. Wainwright

No details yet.

Maryland v. Blake

When a police officer improperly communicates with a suspect after the suspect has invoked his right to an attorney, does Edwards v. Arizona permit consideration of curative measures by the police (such as the detective's quick correction of the officer's improper statement) to conclude that a suspect later initiated communication with the police?

Unanswered. Shortly after oral argument, the Court dismissed the case. The anonymous Per Curiam opinion stated simply: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."

Massachusetts v. Meehan

No details yet.

Mcadams v. Mcsurely

No details yet.

Mcgann v. United States

No details yet.

Medellin v. Dretke

1. Is a federal court bound by the International Court of Justice's ruling that U.S. courts must reconsider a Mexican citizen's claim for relief under the Vienna Convention? 2. Should a federal court enforce an ICJ ruling?

In a 5-4 per curiam opinion, the Court held that Medellin had not exhausted his state court appeals and sent the case back to Texas state court.

Missouri v. Blair

No details yet.

Mitchell v. Oregon Frozen Foods Co.

No details yet.

Montana v. Donald Glenn Imlay

No details yet.

Morris v. Weinberger

No details yet.

Murel v. Baltimore City Criminal Court

No details yet.

Needelman v. United States

No details yet.

New York v. Uplinger

No details yet.

Nike, Inc. v. Kasky

May a corporation participating in a public debate be subjected to liability for factual inaccuracies on the theory that its statements are commercial speech because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions?

The Court did not answer the question dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy dissented. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissented. Justice Breyer argued that no jurisdictional rule prevented the Court from decided the case and that "delay itself may inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights of free speech without making the issue significantly easier to decide later on."

Ohio v. Huertas

No details yet.

Palmieri v. Florida

No details yet.

Perez v. California

No details yet.

PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rene Alberto Rodriguez

No details yet.

Phillips v. New York

No details yet.

Quinn v. Muscare

No details yet.

Ramsey v. New York

No details yet.

Reeves v. Alabama

No details yet.

Ricci v. Village of Arlington Heights

May police officers who do not have a warrant arrest someone for a violation of a fine-only ordinance?

The Court did not answer the question. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

Rice v. Sioux City Cemetery

No details yet.

Robert E. Gibson v. Florida Bar

No details yet.

Roe v. Doe

No details yet.

Rogers v. United States

Does a lower court's refusal to grant a jury instruction, the substance of which is confessed to and acknowledged by the defendant, grounds for a grant of certiorari to the Supreme Court?

No. In a 6-to-3 opinion, the Court held that the Government only had to establish that Rogers knowingly possessed a firearm. The government did not have to show that Rogers knew such possession was unlawful or even that his weapons were unregistered. Looking at Rogers' state of mind, the Court reasoned that his repeated admissions during arrest and trial concerning his awareness and knowledge of the weapons found in his truck, sufficiently demonstrated that his possession of the weapons was intentional. The Court dismissed it grant of certiorari as improvidently granted

Smith v. Mississippi

No details yet.

Susser v. Carvel Corp.

No details yet.

Tennessee v. Middlebrooks

No details yet.

Ticor Title Insurance Co. v. Brown

No details yet.

Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie

No details yet.

Triplett v. Iowa

No details yet.

U.S. Postal Service v. Letter Carriers

No details yet.

Umans v. United States

No details yet.

United States v. Guana-Sanchez

No details yet.

United States v. Jacobs

No details yet.

United States v. Merchant

No details yet.

United States v. Quinn

No details yet.

Van Drasek v. Webb

No details yet.

Vermont v. Cox

No details yet.

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn

No details yet.

White v. United States

No details yet.