Rodearmel v. Clinton

Supreme Court

Rodearmel v. Clinton

177 L. Ed. 2d 300, 130 S. Ct. 3384, 560 U.S. 950, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4630, 78 U.S.L.W. 3713

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 7, 2010

DocketNo. 09-797

StatusPublished

This text of 177 L. Ed. 2d 300 (Rodearmel v. Clinton) 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

Rodearmel v. Clinton, 177 L. Ed. 2d 300, 130 S. Ct. 3384, 560 U.S. 950, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4630, 78 U.S.L.W. 3713 (U.S. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127-131, and n. 10 (DC 2009), so it did not enter “any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution.” Joint Resolution on Compensation and Other Emoluments Attached to the Office of Secretary of State, § 1(b)(3)(A), Pub. L. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, note following 5 U.S.C. § 5312. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Same case below, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123.

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

On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127-131, and n. 10 (DC 2009), so it did not enter “any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution.” Joint Resolution on Compensation and Other Emoluments Attached to the Office of Secretary of State, § 1(b)(3)(A), Pub. L. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, note following 5 U.S.C. § 5312. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Same case below, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 L. Ed. 2d 300, 130 S. Ct. 3384, 560 U.S. 950, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4630, 78 U.S.L.W. 3713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodearmel-v-clinton-scotus-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack