AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE CO.

v.

THORN APPLE VALLEY, INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Lackey v. Texas, 514 U.S. 1045 (U.S. 1995)
  …since this petitioner was first sentenced to death in 1978 should be excluded from the calculus. As I have pointed out on past occasions, the Court’s denial of certiorari does not constitute a ruling on the merits. See, e. g., Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995); Singleton v. Commissioner, 439 U. S. 940, 942 (1978) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari). Often, a denial of certiorari on a novel issue will permit the state and federal courts to “serve as laboratories in which the issue receive…
• Equal. Found. of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 525 U.S. 943 (U.S. 1998)
  …f its views about the underlying issues that the parties have debated at length. Brown v. Texas, 522 U. S. 940, 942 (1997) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Lackey v. Texas, 514 U. S. 1045, 1047 (1995); Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari). The relevant amendment to the city charter reads: “‘The City of Cincinnati and its various Boards and Commissions may not enact, adopt, enforce or administer any ordinance, regulati…
• Carpenter v. Gomez, 516 U.S. 981 (U.S. 1995)
  …tice Stevens, respecting the denial of the petition for writ of certiorari. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion, an order denying a petition for certiorari expresses no opinion on the merits of the case. See, e. g., Barber v. Tennessee, 513 U. S. 1184 (1995) (opinion of Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari). That is so, in part, because the Court properly exercises broad discretion in the administration of its docket, and in part because there are often jurisdictional or prudential reason…