Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Supreme Court

Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona

459 U.S. 1191, 103 S. Ct. 1173

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided February 22, 1983·No. No. 82-675·Published·Cited by 55 cases

Opinion

C. A. 9th Cir. Four Members of the Court have disqualified themselves in this case. Because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

C. A. 9th Cir. Four Members of the Court have disqualified themselves in this case. Because of this absence of a quorum, 28 U. S. C. § 1, and since a majority of the qualified Justices are of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment and order are affirmed under 28 U. S. C. §2109, which provides that under these circumstances “the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court.”

Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 459 U.S. 1191, 103 S. Ct. 1173 (1983).

Pincite

459 U.S. 1191 (Arizona v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8018, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8391, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,977 Taiwan, (Also Known As, for the Purpose of This Proceeding, "Governmental Authorities of Taiwan") Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the U.S. (Formerly Known as the "Coordination Council for Northern American Affairs") and Overseas Chinese Affairs Commission v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California

128 F.3d 712 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Taiwan v. United States District Court

128 F.3d 712 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1229, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2776, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1821 Arthur Calderon, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of the State of California v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Patrick Bruce Gordon, Real Party in Interest

107 F.3d 756 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9269, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,299 Arthur Calderon, Warden, and James Gomez, Director of the California Department of Corrections v. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), Blufford Hayes, Jr., Real Party in Interest

103 F.3d 72 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Calderon v. U.S. District Court

103 F.3d 72 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Arthur Calderon, Warden v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-Party-In-Interest

98 F.3d 1102 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7278, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,963 Arthur Calderon, Warden v. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Anthony Cornell Bean, Real-Party-In-Interest

96 F.3d 1126 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Calderon v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California

96 F.3d 1126 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Opinion

Related