Podcast #1 — Practice Pointers on the Cert Criteria
Today, we’re introducing a new feature to the blog: podcasts. Every week or two, we will record and post a 5-7 minute segment on a topic that seems amenable to a recording. A principal use of podcasts will be to have guests appear on the blog.
In this first podcast, which lasts approximately 7 minutes, I give an overview of the factors that the Justices consider in granting cert.
You can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes from this link, or, if you have other podcasting or RSS software, you can subscribe to our feed directly here. Alternatively, the premiere episode is available for download as a stand-alone mp3 here.
Tom –
Great podcast. But I think more interesting are the cases that don’t meet your 5 criteria. For example, in the upcoming term, are there others besides the school desegregation cases and the late-term abortion cases? As I recall, all the one-person-one-vote and gerrymandering cases are fact-sensitive and don’t arise from a circuit split, but some are appeals from a 3-judge court.
Another category that would be interesting to analyze is where the court acts to correct errors, all the while denying that is its job. It seems to happen where a circuit (usually the Ninth) has misinterpreted a recent S Ct precedent and is reversed per curiam without argument. Have you/has anyone analyzed cert petitions presenting this pattern for a rationale?
Comment by r.friedman — August 25, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Extending my remarks, the next post related to the patent case, and obviously there can be no conflict with the Federal Circuit. Is there any pattern in the cases the Court has chosen to take? Are there any lessons to be taken from other special courts, such as wage-price control courts?
Comment by r.friedman — August 26, 2006 @ 11:53 am
I agree, great job.
I also agree with r.friedman that, having described the factors that typically influence a cert. grant, it would be useful to talk about the exceptions.
Comment by Marc Shepherd — August 29, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
I also find the exceptions interesting. I am aware of at least one recent instance (Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Sorrell, 05-746) where certiorari was granted with respect to an unpublished intermediate state court decision (out of Missouri). According to the conventional wisdom, that should never happen.
Norfolk involved a large verdict and a contributory negligence issue.
In Pasternack v. Saleh, 05-10561, which also involves a large verdict, and in which the unpublished decision below is that of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the court requested a response from the plaintiff. Defendant, who is an attorney, is now pro se and IFP. I only found a glimmer about the case online:
www.bryant-cantorna.com/civil-jury.html
I have a cert petition pending and I have been looking for patterns in response requests. It’s almost as helpful as scrutinizing tea leaves.
Comment by Norma Chase — August 31, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
Me again.
While we’re on the subject, will somebody tell me how Nelson v. Adams USA, 529 US 460 (2000) fits the classic certiorari criteria? (If you look up the case, don’t miss Footnote 2.)
Comment by Norma Chase — September 3, 2006 @ 3:58 pm