Haig v. Bissonette

485 U.S. 264, 108 S. Ct. 1253, 99 L. Ed. 2d 288, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1317
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 21, 1988·No. 86-987·Published·Cited by 28 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Because the Court lacks 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 the Court, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is 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.

The Chief Justice, Justice O’Connor, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy took no part in this decision.

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

Haig v. Bissonette, 485 U.S. 264, 108 S. Ct. 1253, 99 L. Ed. 2d 288, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1317 (1988).

485 U.S. 264 (Haig v. Bissonette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wong v. Minnesota Department of Human Services
820 F.3d 922 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)
United States v. Michael Dreyer
804 F.3d 1266 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
United States v. Looking Cloud
Eighth Circuit, 2005
Brown v. Ely
14 P.3d 257 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2000)
Wullschleger v. Peters
28 F. Supp. 2d 549 (D. Nebraska, 1998)
Riley v. Newton
94 F.3d 632 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Terry Lee Kummer
15 F.3d 1455 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
Kim v. State
817 P.2d 467 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1991)
Wade v. Blasingame
931 F.2d 1285 (Eighth Circuit, 1991)
Rodriguez v. City of Passaic
730 F. Supp. 1314 (D. New Jersey, 1990)
Mitchell v. City of Sapulpa
857 F.2d 713 (Tenth Circuit, 1988)
Haig v. Bissonette
486 U.S. 1019 (Supreme Court, 1988)