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.)

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In Pasternack v. Saleh, 05-10561, which also involves a large verdict, and in which the unpublished decision below is that of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, the court requested a response from the plaintiff.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:

http://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.

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.

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?