Smith v. Thomas

Supreme Court

Smith v. Thomas

179 L. Ed. 2d 496, 131 S. Ct. 1614, 562 U.S. 1267, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1992, 79 U.S.L.W. 3512

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 7, 2011

DocketNo. 10-935

StatusPublished

This text of 179 L. Ed. 2d 496 (Smith v. Thomas) 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

Smith v. Thomas, 179 L. Ed. 2d 496, 131 S. Ct. 1614, 562 U.S. 1267, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1992, 79 U.S.L.W. 3512 (U.S. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment 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 affir-mance by an equally divided court.”

The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 8.

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

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of Court, the judgment 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 affir-mance by an equally divided court.”

The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Alito, and Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 8.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 L. Ed. 2d 496, 131 S. Ct. 1614, 562 U.S. 1267, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 1992, 79 U.S.L.W. 3512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-thomas-scotus-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack