United States v. Hatter

Supreme Court

United States v. Hatter

117 S. Ct. 39, 519 U.S. 801, 136 L. Ed. 2d 3, 65 U.S.L.W. 3265, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6090, 85 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedOctober 7, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1733

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 117 S. Ct. 39 (United States v. Hatter) 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

United States v. Hatter, 117 S. Ct. 39, 519 U.S. 801, 136 L. Ed. 2d 3, 65 U.S.L.W. 3265, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6090, 85 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753 (U.S. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. Section 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 Federal Circuit is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. Section 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.

Justice STEVENS, Justice O’CONNOR, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

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

Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. Section 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 Federal Circuit is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. Section 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.

Justice STEVENS, Justice O’CONNOR, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 S. Ct. 39, 519 U.S. 801, 136 L. Ed. 2d 3, 65 U.S.L.W. 3265, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6090, 85 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hatter-scotus-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack