a request to the supreme court that it review a case that was already decided is made via a petition for review.
a request to the supreme court that it review a case that was already decided is made via a petition for review.
a request to the supreme court that it review a case that was already decided is made via a(n)?
petition for review
on february 24, 2000, the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit (5th circuit), acting "sua sponte" (on their own accord), decided to rehear cisneros' sentence "en banc" (before the entire court). after reviewing the case, they reaffirmed the conviction on january 4, 2001. a petition for a rehearing was denied by the court on february 2, 2001. her defense filed a writ of "certiorari", seeking a judicial court review, on april 4, 2001. on june 19, 2001, cisneros' defense filed a petition with the u.s. supreme court to review her conviction and have it overturned. they claimed that the u.s. federal government did not have jurisdiction over her case because there was no evidence of foreign commerce to invoke federal jurisdiction. cisneros' attorney stated that the evidence brought forward from the prosecution showed that the murder arrangements were made in texas, and that the murderers traveled from dallas to brownsville—not mexico—before the murder. since the u.s. supreme court only reviews a few hundred cases out of the thousands of requests it receives each year, this appeal was cisneros' last attempt to have her conviction overturned. the 5th circuit refused to consider the appeal on october 3. the u.s. supreme court denied her request for an appeal a second time on november 10, 2008, bringing the case to full closure.
murder of joey fischer
story first confronted the argument that federal judicial power came from the states, and therefore that the supreme court had no right to overrule a state's interpretation of the treaty without its consent. story found that it was clear from history and the preamble of the constitution that the federal power was given directly by the people and not by the states. story then cited article iii, sec. 2, cl. 2, stating that "in all other cases before mentioned the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction" showed a textual commitment to allow supreme court review of state decisions. if the supreme court could not review decisions from the highest state court, the state courts would be excluded from ever hearing a case in any way involving a federal question, because the supreme court would be deprived of appellate jurisdiction in those cases. thus, because it was established that the states had the power to rule on federal issues it must be true that the supreme court can review the decision or the supreme court would not have appellate jurisdiction in "all other cases." furthermore, the supremacy clause declares that the federal interpretation will trump the state's interpretation. story then quickly rejected concerns over state judicial sovereignty. under article i, section 10 the constitution outlines specific limits upon the "sovereignty" of state governments. the supreme court could already review state executive and legislative decisions and this case was no different. story then confronted the arguments that state judges were bound to uphold the constitution just as federal judges were, and so denying state interpretations presumed that the state judges would less than faithfully interpret the constitution. story countered that even if state judges were not biased, the issue was not bias but uniformity in federal law. furthermore, the legislative power to remove a case to federal court would be inadequate for maintaining this uniformity. finally, story applied these principles of judicial review to the decisions below and found that the state court's decision was in error. the vote tally was 6 to 1.
martin v. hunter's lessee