home
Supreme Court Grants Cert, Vacates Sentencing Opinion | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I was trying to (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:21:34 PM EST
avoid using the words "granted cert" since it's so legalistic so I changed it to "agreed to review", what it usually means. I've changed it back. Thanks for the correction.

[ Parent ]
But More to the Point (none / 0) (#4)
by The Maven on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:55:01 PM EST
it would appear that SCOTUS didn't really "take" the case (at least not in the way most people would ascribe to that term), as described in the title here, since it was summarily disposed of via the remand to the Tenth Circuit. There will thus be no briefing before the Supreme Court, no oral argument, nor any decision.

(Sorry for sounding like such a nitpicker here . . .)

[ Parent ]

Well, GVR is a confusing concept to a layperson (none / 0) (#5)
by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:09:57 PM EST
since its not much talked about, but it is a frequent disposition after a big case.  

The court is just saying that it appears that this case may be controlled by this case we decided after the lower court decision, so rather than deal with it now we want the lower court to see if our intervening decision makes a difference in how they would decide the case.  The 10th could, theoretically, conclude that the sentence is an abuse of discretion and have the same result, though abuse of discretion is a tough standard so it seems  unlikely.

[ Parent ]

I didn't even think to look at the title (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:23:31 PM EST
of the post. Thanks, I've changed that too.

[ Parent ]

Supreme Court Grants Cert, Vacates Sentencing Opinion | 8 comments (8 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft