SCOTUSBlog

MARCH 30, 2022

Andrus argues that the Texas court “disregard[ed] this Court’s determinations and legal precedents to strain for a result that it prefers,” and in the process violated “vertical stare decisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. That’s all for this week. Until next time, stay safe ! New Relist.

Stare Decisis 99

Stare Decisis Court Felony Statute 99

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 12, 2022

1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the U.S. Goertz , 21-442. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.

Stare Decisis 112

Stare Decisis Court Statute Litigation 112

SCOTUSBlog

MAY 11, 2022

The question is whether the United States is such a successful litigant that the court will grant review even in cases it doesn’t want the court to review. The United States is easily the most successful petitioner before the Supreme Court, winning review in over 70% of the cases in which it files a cert petition.

Stare Decisis 79

Stare Decisis Administrative Law Statute Government 79

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 20, 2022

1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals (as the U.S. Goertz , 21-442. Issue : Whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C.

Statute 105

Statute Stare Decisis Court Manufacturing 105

SCOTUSBlog

JUNE 7, 2022

The FCA gives the government a fair amount of ability to control the litigation. Then the government can intervene if it wishes and take the lead in litigating the case; or it can decline to intervene and let the relator litigate the case.

Government 84

Government Stare Decisis Court Litigation 84

SCOTUSBlog

APRIL 27, 2022

They contend that overbroad application of the court’s older precedents essentially would “ federaliz[e] much medical-malpractice litigation ,” and say the court should use this case as an opportunity to clarify the proper tests for recognizing a private right of action.

Statute 81

Statute Stare Decisis Court Drafting 81

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 16, 2024

The fishing companies, led by Loper Bright Enterprises, went to federal court in Washington in 2020 to challenge the NMFS rule, arguing that it was not authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Although stare decisis analysis may apply to that holding, it does not apply to the interpretative methodology outlined in Chevron.

Stare Decisis 145

Stare Decisis Court Statute Government 145