- Posted June 27, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Justices using more words, dictionaries
By Kimberly Atkins
Dolan Media Newswires
BOSTON, MA -- As the October 2010 term draws nearer to its close, Supreme Court opinions are getting wordier. At the same time, the justices appear to be parsing those words much more by making frequent uses of dictionaries in their analyses.
As USA Today's Joan Biskupic points out, the later in the term, the longer opinions tend to be. That's because the longer it takes for a case to be decided, the more likely it's due to the fact that there are concurring and dissenting opinions involved, which take longer for the justices to write, review and revise.
But justices are not tossing about words willy-nilly. Instead they tend to scrutinize them, with the aids of the usual legal precedents and authorities, and also by using good ol' dictionaries. In a recent case, notes The New York Times' Adam Liptak, Chief Justice John G. Roberts even consulted a dictionary for the definition of the word ''of.'' (It means what you think it means, he pointed out.)
Among the likely wordy and well-defined opinions we are still awaiting from the Court:
-A decision in the latest installment in the ongoing battle between the estates of the late pinup and reality star Anna Nicole Smith and her late husband and oil magnate J. Howard Marshall, which turns on the application of bankruptcy law (Stern v. Marshall);
-A ruling on whether defendants who are sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement can later seek a sentence reduction under amended U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Freeman v. U.S.);
-A decision on whether a court may consider factors such as age in determining whether a youth is in police custody and therefore entitled to Miranda rights (J.D.B. v. North Carolina);
-A ruling deciding whether state law failure-to-warn suits against generic drug makers are preempted by federal law? (Pliva v. Mensing);
-And the much-anticipated decision of whether more than 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees may be certified as a class in what could be the nation's largest class-action gender discrimination suit (Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes).
Entire contents copyrighted © 2011 by Dolan Media Company.
Published: Mon, Jun 27, 2011
headlines Ingham County
- MSU Law Moot Court team of two 3L students emerges national champions at First Amendment Competiton in D.C.
- MSU Law captivated by prominent Harvard professor analyzing artificial intelligence
- OWLS Meeting
- Advocate: Former insurance pro studies in Dual JD program
- Man with disabilities settles accessibility lawsuit
headlines National
- A Mother's Trial: Nurse wrongly accused of child abuse forges career bridging law and medicine to help others
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Independence and evidence-based decision-making must drive federal prosecutorial actions, ABA says
- ABA 2025 Celebration of Pro Bono to focus on supporting communities
- Judge tosses Drake’s suit over Kendrick Lamar’s rap song calling him ‘certified pedophile’
- Donna Adelson showed ‘utter lack of remorse’ for law prof’s murder, judge says before sentencing




