Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States

William & Mary Law School

Appeals

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Jan 2013

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Apr 2011

When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Feb 2010

Controversial Gvrs And The "Degradation" Of The Gvr, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Popular Media

No abstract provided.


The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl Mar 2009

The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every year

This Article …


The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson Apr 2008

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …