Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
County of Sonoma v. Isbell
439 U.S. 996
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1978-11-27
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- labor dispute involved; picketing and sympathy strike not enjoinable because non-struck railroad has common interest with struck railroad by virtue of railroads' participation in strike insurance plan
- labor dispute involved; picketing and sympathy strike not enjoinable because nonstruck railroad has common interest with struck railroad by virtue of railroads’ participation in strike insurance plan
- invalid waiver of right to jury trial in cognovit note
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed County of Sonoma v. Isbell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 35 opinions
Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied for failure to file petition within time provided by 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c).
Mr. Justice Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart join.When a petition for certiorari is jurisdictionally untimely, should the Court so indicate in its order denying the writ? I think not, for these reasons: First, since a denial of certio-rari has no precedential value in any event, the notation serves no useful purpose. Second, since the question of timeliness is not always easy to answer, compare Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, with Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. King County, 264 U. S. 22, and may produce different answers from different Members of the Court, even the decision to include that brief notation may consume valuable time. Third, because there is no consistency in the Court’s practice with regard to such notations, their spasmodic use may engender confusion and misunderstanding. Accordingly, I do not join in the Court’s statement.