Question

12. A Writ of Certiorari was challenged by the appellee because only three of the Supreme...

12. A Writ of Certiorari was challenged by the appellee because only three of the Supreme Court justices agreed to hear the case. What is the issue before the court?

Homework Answers

Answer #1

Writ of certiorari:

It means to hear an appeal from Lower court by the supreme court. When the party is not satisfied by the lower courts decisions it could go for writ of certiorari. And the supreme court decides, at the request of party challenging the decision of the Lower court, to review the case.

In the question given that a writ of certiorari was challenged by the appellee, because only 3 of the supreme court justice agreed to hear the case. The issue before the court is that for writ of certiorari to be valid at least four justices must vote to grant certiorari in any case.

Hence, the challenge is correct by the appellee, because only three Supreme Court Judges cannot hear the case and give a decision on it on a writ of certiorari.

Know the answer?
Your Answer:

Post as a guest

Your Name:

What's your source?

Earn Coins

Coins can be redeemed for fabulous gifts.

Not the answer you're looking for?
Ask your own homework help question
Similar Questions
True and False. Explain all false answers. 1. Proposed regulations carry more weight than temporary regulations....
True and False. Explain all false answers. 1. Proposed regulations carry more weight than temporary regulations. 2. Procedural regulations are housekeeping-type instructions. 3.The granting of a writ of certiorari indicated that at least three members of the supreme court believe that an issue is sufficient importance to be heard by the full court. 4. New Jersey is in the jurisdiction of the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. 5. The IRS is required to make a letter ruling public.
Match the correct terminology to the scenario. (match the letters with the correct number) TERMINOLOGY (LETTERS):...
Match the correct terminology to the scenario. (match the letters with the correct number) TERMINOLOGY (LETTERS): A-Diversity Jurisdiction B-Dodd Frank C-Due Process (5th Amendment) D-Subject Matter Jurisdiction E- Establishment Clause (1st Amendment) F-Foreign Corrupt Practices G- Invasion of Privacy (appropriation of identity) H- Attractive Nuisance I- Special Damages (Compensatory) J- Commercial Speech (1st Amendment) K- Dormant Commerce Clause L- Legitimate Government Interest M-4th Amendment N- Madison V. Marbury O- Rule of Four P- Voir Dire Q- Articles of Confederation R-14th...
The federal courts hear only a small fraction of the cases decided each year in the...
The federal courts hear only a small fraction of the cases decided each year in the United States. Most are handled by the state courts. a. True. b. False. Supreme Court justices and other federal judges serve for fixed terms of 10 years.  a. True. b. False.
In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled that movies were not protected by the First Amendment; that...
In 1915, the Supreme Court ruled that movies were not protected by the First Amendment; that they were acts of commerce and not speech because they were shipped across state lines for the purpose of doing business. So, from 1915 to 1952 (when the Supreme Court reversed itself and extend First Amendment protection to movies), movies were not covered by the First Amendment. Why did the Court make that ruling? A. Because the movie industry was just developing, the Court...
Explain the three (3) part test developed by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case of...
Explain the three (3) part test developed by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman
The United States Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari in a tax case if:...
The United States Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari in a tax case if: a. it involves tax issues of significant importance involving existing law, but which require interpretation. b. it involves a provision of the of tax law which has been the subject of conflicting interpretation by the Circuit Courts of Appeal. c. Both a and b. d. Neither a nor b. 39. The citation, Kean v. Comm'r, 407 F.3d 186 (CA3, 2005), 2005-1 USTC ¶50,397, indicates...
1. Non-compete agreements are unenforceable if not in writing. True/false 2. In 1994, the Arizona Supreme...
1. Non-compete agreements are unenforceable if not in writing. True/false 2. In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court decided the case of Hernandez v. Arizona Board of Regents and found a duty of care to avoid providing alcohol to underage consumers. If in 2010 a plaintiff from Flagstaff, a city in Arizona brings a lawsuit against a student group at an Arizona university of providing alcohol to members under the legal drinking age; will the Hernandez v. Arizona board of regent’s...
In this assignment, you have the opportunity to review a Supreme Court case decision written in...
In this assignment, you have the opportunity to review a Supreme Court case decision written in 1979 that is still good law today and affects everyone who drives an automobile. Use any web browser to look up the above case of Taylor v Superior Court. 24 Cal 3rd indicates that the case is located in volume 24 of the official reports of the Supreme Ct. of California (3rd series) at page 890.                 There the court grappled with an award...
QUESTION 11 Green has been hired as an expert witness. He may be required to file...
QUESTION 11 Green has been hired as an expert witness. He may be required to file a written report. This report would include not only his opinions regarding the case, but also a list of publications he has authored and a list of cases in which he has testified. True False QUESTION 12 Which of the following is one of the three questions that the Supreme Court requires judges to answer before allowing expert testimony? Is the expert free from...
According to Chapter 12 of American Government, what is an executive order and what are executive...
According to Chapter 12 of American Government, what is an executive order and what are executive orders subject to? How does the Korematsu (1944) case and the internment of Japanese Americans suggest about the extent of the president's war powers? That is, does the president have too much authority during times of war? Do you think the Supreme Court reached the "right" decision at the time? Why or why not? Explain your answer.