What the Supreme Court Did Not Do During the 1951 Term
| dc.contributor.author | Harper, Fowler | |
| dc.date | 2021-11-25T13:34:36.000 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-26T11:42:34Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2021-11-26T11:42:34Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1953-01-01T00:00:00-08:00 | |
| dc.identifier | fss_papers/3560 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Fowler V Harper & George C Pratt, What the Supreme Court Did Not Do During the 1951 Term, 101 U. PA. L. REV. 439 (1952). | |
| dc.identifier.contextkey | 2416105 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/2979 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This is the third of somewhat laborious examinations of the cases which the Supreme Court declined to review during a term by exercising its discretionary power to deny petitions for the writ of certiorari or by dismissing appeals, a procedure but slightly less summary. A survey of the hundreds of cases which the Court disposed of in this way indicates three major problems: 1) What are the criteria used by the Court in granting or denying certiorari? 2) Why does the Court refuse to give its reasons for a denial and is it justified in such refusal? 3) What is the meaning, theoretically and functionally, of a denial of certiorari? | |
| dc.subject | What the Supreme Court Did Not Do During the 1951 Term (with G. C. Pratt) | |
| dc.subject | 101 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 439 (1953) | |
| dc.title | What the Supreme Court Did Not Do During the 1951 Term | |
| dc.source.journaltitle | Faculty Scholarship Series | |
| refterms.dateFOA | 2021-11-26T11:42:34Z | |
| dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3560 | |
| dc.identifier.legacyfulltext | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4572&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1 |
