COUNTY OF SONOMA ET AL.
v.
ISBELL ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court denied the County of Sonoma's petition for certiorari as untimely under the applicable federal statute. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Stewart, dissented from the Court's practice of explicitly noting the timeliness defect in its order, arguing that such notations serve no precedential purpose, may create inconsistency in the Court's practice, and waste judicial resources.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
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 Power & Light Co. v. King County, 264 U. S. 22, and may produce different answers from different Members of the Court, even the decision to include that brief notation may consume valuable time. Third, because there is no consistency in the Court’s practice with regard to such notations, their spasmodic use may engender confusion and misunderstanding. Accordingly, I do not join in the Court’s statement.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1986)…part of the underlying action will not be considered by this Court”). See Gibson v. Zahradnick, 581 F. 2d 75 (CA4) (holding that the Gibson v. Commonwealth analysis violates Constitution and that writ of ha-beas corpus should issue), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 996 (1978). In fact, although the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided Gibson after the briefs in petitioner’s case had been filed, the Gibson opinion was issued before the initial Virginia Supreme Court opinion refusing to address the issue.…
-
United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 1984)…States v. Bennett, 460 F. 2d 872, 878-79 n. 23 (D.C.Cir.1972); Edmonds v. United States, 260 F. 2d 474 (D.C.Cir.1958). Some courts have held it to be constitutionally inadmissible. Gibson v. Zahradnick, 581 F. 2d 75, 78 (4th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 996, 99 S.Ct. 597, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978); United States v. Bohle, 445 F. 2d 54, 66-67 (7th Cir.1971). The dissent would expand this constitutional proscription, so that the Fifth Amendment would exclude as well "statements made by the defendant to the p…1 / 2
-
Noggle v. Marshall, 706 F.2d 1408 (6th Cir. 1983)…m a number of jurisdictions holding that incriminating statements made in court-ordered psychiatric examinations may not be used for the purpose of proving the acts of the crime, e.g., Gibson v. Zahradnick, 581 F. 2d 75, 76 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 996, 99 S.Ct. 597, 58 L.Ed.2d 669 (1978); United States v. Cohen, 530 F. 2d 43, 48 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 855, 97 S.Ct. 149, 50 L.Ed.2d 130 (1976); United States v. Alvarez, supra. Moreover, in Estelle v. Smith, supra, the United States Supr…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1942)
- Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Cnty. of King, 264 U.S. 22 (U.S. 1924)