Kadans v. Collins
Headline: A Justice denies a lawyer’s emergency request to practice law while a rehearing is considered, ruling he cannot grant temporary relief because dissenting Justices are barred from reopening denials under court rules.
Holding: A single Justice refused to permit the lawyer to practice pending consideration of a rehearing because by rule dissenting Justices may not vote on rehearing and granting relief would effectively grant the previously denied review.
- Prevents a dissenting Justice from unilaterally allowing a lawyer to practice during rehearing.
- Emergency relief requires action by a Justice who originally voted to deny.
- Keeps rehearing control with Justices who concurred in the Court’s decision.
Summary
Background
A lawyer whose petition for review was denied asked a Justice for temporary permission to continue practicing law while a request for rehearing was considered. The Justice writing here had recorded that he and another Justice had voted to grant the petition when the Court first voted. The initial denial occurred on January 10, 1972, and the lawyer then sought emergency relief from that Justice.
Reasoning
The key question was whether a dissenting Justice could give the lawyer temporary relief before the full Court reconsiders the matter. The Justice explained that granting permission to practice would be, in effect, a partial grant of the review the Court had already denied. He relied on Rule 58(1), which says petitions for rehearing are considered only by those who agreed with the Court’s decision. Because he was among the dissenters, he is not allowed to vote on a rehearing unless one of the Justices who voted to deny changes their vote.
Real world impact
As a result, the Justice denied the emergency request. This means a single dissenting Justice cannot unilaterally allow a lawyer to resume practice while a rehearing is pending. Any similar relief must come from a Justice who can participate under the Court’s rules or from the full Court if votes change.
Dissents or concurrances
The Justice noted his dissenting position and that he and one other Justice had voted to grant review, but he could not act alone under the Court’s procedures.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?