.@AppellateDaily Besides the solidarity theory, if the panel divvied up the opinion to facilitate quick decision, per cur. would make sense.
-
-
-
This seems quite plausible to me under circumstances, though big deviation from normal practice.
-
.
@danepps@AppellateDaily True. But see Bush v. Gore issued per cur on rushed timetable & widely believed authored jointly. Cf. PP v. Casey. -
yeah definitely.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
"per curiam" can serve many purposes but here shows the court speaks with one united voice
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
so not any one of them individually could be blasted on twitter...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Case was heard by CA9 motions panel. As far back as I can remember, motions panel orders are virtually all per curiam.
-
(Not so much explaining as saying it's consistent with longstanding practice.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
sometimes just weird court practices: e.g., in circuits, staff attorney written ops usually PC. SCOTUS, sum revs always pc
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Because different chambers authored different parts of the opinion?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
either b/c they deliberately want to speak as one, or they split writing up to give the clerks a rest. Former more plausible
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.