ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> SCOTUSBLOG

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Federal Judiciary

: SCOTUSBLOG

Petitions to Watch in OT07 | A Mid-Term Update

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

ADVERTISEMENTS

As we near the midway point of October Term 2007, we thought it worthwhile to review the accuracy of our regular feature, “Petitions to Watch” (PTW). As readers of this blog know, in advance of each conference we publish a list of all petitions on the Court’s ?paid’ docket that Tom has deemed to have at least a reasonable chance of being granted. While the number of petitions on the watch list varies from conference to conference, PTW over the course of a term features the roughly 15% of paid petitions deemed to be most likely candidates for certiorari. While PTW’s main goal is to anticipate every case the Justices will grant, it also hopes to include as few petitions as possible that are eventually denied.

Since the start of the term, beginning with the “long conference” in late September, the Justices have granted certiorari in 45 cases (though three were dismissed before argument) from the Court’s paid docket. Of those 45 cases, 37 were featured in PTW following their original distribution to conference, for an ?accuracy’ rate of 82.2%. (Note: one petition, No. 07-110, Arave v. Hoffman, was selected but mistakenly left off the published list.) After accounting for an additional two petitions featured following the government’s submission of an invitation brief, the rate climbs to 86.7%. These figures are almost identical to those of OT06, when PTW flagged 84% of the eventual grants.

To put the figures in perspective, the only cases granted since the start of the term that did not appear in PTW were MeadWestvaco v. Ill. Dept. of Revenue (06-1413), Preston v. Ferrer (06-1643), Boulware v. United States (06-1509), Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) (consolidated), Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land & Cattle (07-411), and Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, (07-474).

As for the other measurement of success - overinclusiveness - PTW’s performance in the first half of OT07 is also nearly identical to the previous term. Since the start of the term, PTW has listed 160 petitions as having a reasonable chance of being granted. Of those, 34 were granted plenary review, while an additional four were either GVR’d or summarily reversed, for combined rate of 23.1%. Of the remaining petitions, 106 were denied (66.3%), four were CVSG’d (2.5%), two were dismissed (1.25%), and eleven remain outstanding (6.9%).

As the numbers suggest, between two-thirds and three-quarters of all petitions featured in PTW will eventually be denied. But by comparison, the aforementioned grant rate of petitions we do feature (23.1%) dwarfs the rate of those we do not. Between the end of June and mid-November, for example, the Court received more than 660 paid petitions for certiorari. Of the more than 570 that did not appear in PTW, only three were granted - for a success rate of 0.53%. In sum, while petitions featured in PTW are far from guaranteed of being accepted, those left off the list remain - statistically speaking - very unlikely to be granted.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 28, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0164 secs (new cache)