SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Charles Tutt who wrote (38534)12/4/2000 1:26:27 PM
From: Sueponine  Respond to of 64865
 
No Charles, They issued the ruling and put a "name" on the rendering which Greta Van Sustern described as basically being a "pact". The justices will not enter specific opionions. It is one opinion.....basically giving it back to Florida S. C. for further explanation about how they reached their findings.
Sue.



To: Charles Tutt who wrote (38534)12/4/2000 1:33:49 PM
From: Sueponine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 64865
 
Charles, The opinion was rendered Per Curiam which is...
Per Curiam
A "per curiam" decision is a decision delivered via an opinion issued in the name of the Court
rather than specific justices. Most decisions on the merits by the Supreme Court (and other
appellate courts in the U.S.) take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices
(and joined in by others). Even when such signed opinions are unanimous, they are not termed
"per curiam." "Per curiam" decisions are given that label by the Court itself and tend to be
short. Usually, though not always, they deal with issues the Court views as relatively
non-controversial. For examples, see, e.g.,Wood v. Bartholomew, No. 94-1419 (Oct. 10, 1995)
and Kimberlin v. Quinlin, No. 93-2068 (June 12, 1995) . However, they are not necessarily
unanimous. Indeed, some per curiam decisions are accompanied by dissenting opinions. See,
e.g., Purkett v. Elem, No. 94-802 (May 15, 1995).