KLEEM, Et Al. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Supreme Court

KLEEM, Et Al. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

479 U.S. 1308, 93 L. Ed. 2d 566, 107 S. Ct. 484, 55 U.S.L.W. 3412, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 5343

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 4, 1986

DocketA-416

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 479 U.S. 1308 (KLEEM, Et Al. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

KLEEM, Et Al. v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, 479 U.S. 1308, 93 L. Ed. 2d 566, 107 S. Ct. 484, 55 U.S.L.W. 3412, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 5343 (1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

Counsel for applicants has asked for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The stated reason for the request is that the case presents “important questions under the Constitution of the United States which were determined adversely to the petitioner by the court below,” and counsel desires “additional time to research and prepare the Writ of Certiorari.”

Writs of certiorari in civil cases “shall be . . . applied for within ninety days” after entry of the subject judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c), which period may be extended by a Justice of this Court (up to an additional 60 days) “for good cause shown,” ibid. Under this Court’s Rule 20.6, requests for extensions of time “are not favored.” In this case, counsel has given no reason for his request other than his desire for additional time to research constitutional issues. The same reason could be adduced in virtually all cases. It does not meet the standard of “good cause shown” for the granting of a disfavored extension. Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the application for extension is

Denied.

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

Justice Scalia, Circuit Justice.

Counsel for applicants has asked for a 60-day extension of time in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The stated reason for the request is that the case presents “important questions under the Constitution of the United States which were determined adversely to the petitioner by the court below,” and counsel desires “additional time to research and prepare the Writ of Certiorari.”

Writs of certiorari in civil cases “shall be . . . applied for within ninety days” after entry of the subject judgment, 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c), which period may be extended by a Justice of this Court (up to an additional 60 days) “for good cause shown,” ibid. Under this Court’s Rule 20.6, requests for extensions of time “are not favored.” In this case, counsel has given no reason for his request other than his desire for additional time to research constitutional issues. The same reason could be adduced in virtually all cases. It does not meet the standard of “good cause shown” for the granting of a disfavored extension. Pursuant to the Rules of this Court, the application for extension is

Denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 U.S. 1308, 93 L. Ed. 2d 566, 107 S. Ct. 484, 55 U.S.L.W. 3412, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 5343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kleem-et-al-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-scotus-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack