From October to , provides cert. The materials are arranged by the official U. Reports citation. The briefs are arranged by docket number. Briefs Parties to each case considered by the Supreme Court file briefs related to the merits of the case. Supreme Court Briefs Selected petitions and related briefs as early as Office of the Solicitor General Merits briefs from to present site does not include responses to "in forma pauperis" petitions.
L3 Contains briefs filed in major constitutional law cases since U54 Micro Merits briefs from to present. The method of locating briefs varies by date: Access to briefs from this time period requires the use of an index. Supreme Court Briefs Amicus briefs for cases granted certiorari from January to present selected coverage from Supreme Court Briefs Amicus briefs from some older briefs may be available.
Bloomberg Law: U. Supreme Court Briefs Select briefs filed from to present U. Office of the Solicitor General Amicus briefs from to present site does not include responses to in forma pauperis "IFP" petitions. Oral Arguments U. Supreme Court Website Transcripts OT - are made available the same day as the argument, and audio recordings are posted on Fridays of each argument week OT -. There are over oral arguments from leading cases currently available with more added each year.
The recordings of oral arguments at the National Archives provide the source material for this site. The Oyez Player overlays audio with text and identifies the speaker. Oyez also has transcripts. Available arguments begin in October Term Wainwright ; Miranda v. Arizona ; Roe v. Wade ; and United States v. Arguments are edited and narrated.
Note that oral argument recordings are not available to the general public during the current term and are transmitted to the National Archives at the beginning of the following term. For more information on oral argument recordings at the National Archives, contact the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Records Section at or mopix nara. Transcripts of oral arguments are also available at the National Archives in Washington, D. For more information on oral argument transcripts at the National Archives, contact Archives I Reference, Textual Archives Services Division, at or archives1reference nara.
U Micro Microfiche collection contains transcripts of all oral arguments since and selected arguments from Prior to , oral arguments were not regularly transcribed. The transcripts are received once a year, usually about months after the end of the term. For more information on the availability of transcripts and obtaining copies, contact the library at Because petitions from non-experts far outnumber those from experts, the original goal was for an overall sample composed of about three quarters non-expert petitions and one quarter expert petitions As it turns out, the actual numbers were 27 from experts and 76 from non-experts.
The petitions were chosen from a series of sequences of docket numbers. Some petitions were discarded and others retained to balance out the proportion of expert to non-expert petitions.
Lawyers from firms with successful Supreme Court practices who were not recognized Supreme Court experts themselves were included in the non-expert group. When the three GVRs were discounted, six of the or 6 percent of the total set of petitions were granted.
This means that experts were successful in 25 percent of their petitions excluding the GVRs and 33 percent of their petitions when the GVRs were included.
The expert petitions were from attorneys including Carter Phillips, Jeffrey Fisher, Tom Goldstein and other veterans of this terrain. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Oliveira , Adam Unikowsky in Marinello v.
United States , Kannon Shanmugam in Dahda v. United States , Pam Karlan in Lozman v. Because the experts in the overall sample fared so much better than the non-experts, one obvious question is whether the experts did anything differently.
Another area of difference that was well within the purview of petitioning attorneys was in the text of the petitions themselves. Lawyers, however, have very little information from the court on what the justices are looking for when reviewing petitions.
The factors described in Rule 10 center around conflicts between various federal and state courts. The first part of this analysis looks at three parts of the petitions individually — the question presented in the introduction, the section headings and the central petition text.
A simple area to observe for differences is the length of each of these petition components. The box-plot distribution graphs show the median word length in the middle of each box between the two shades of gray, with the distributions extending outwards. Each blue dot represents the length of an individual petition and dots outside of the lines reflect outliers that are far from the median.
Although the median length for non-experts was similar to that for experts, their spreads were quite divergent. The biggest difference between the sets of petitions was in the area with the most abundant substance — the petition text. All of these disparities, especially those related to the petition-text length, should provide some insight for petition drafters into the approximate lengths to strive for.
Another general area of divergence was in overall word choice. To gauge the word choice in these petitions the text was first pre-processed through a series of steps, including eliminating stop-words , generating two word n-grams bigrams , and stemming.
Becerra , dealing with the power of the Department of Health and Human Services to set reimbursement rates. It is a question of the decision making power deferred to the agency by Congress. The next graph looks at the number of sentences in each petition to see if this differs from the words measure. Here, three petitions had over 1, sentences with the average number of sentences near Patel v. Garland had the most sentences of the batch.
Patel deals with whether presenting false information to the government should make an individual ineligible to obtain a green card. The other two cases with over 1, words were American Hospital and Cummings v. Premier Rehab , a case about whether certain statutes that provide remedies for discrimination should provide compensation for emotional distress. With words and sentence data we can begin to examine sentence complexity with a words per sentence ratio.
Here we see that the shortest petition, the one in Wooden v. United States , dealing with the definition of multiple offenses under the Armed Career Criminal Act, has the most words per sentence with almost The average words per sentence was under 10 and the fewest came in Cumming v.
Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Supreme Court , "Justice Caseload," accessed December 9, Category : Judicial terms and definitions. Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote? How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open? Who Represents Me?
0コメント