In re Disbarment of Berg

1998-11-30
Share:

Headline: Court denies requests to rehear dozens of appealed cases, leaving earlier decisions in those matters in place and ending further review at this Court.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Ends further Supreme Court review of the listed cases.
  • Leaves earlier decisions in those cases unchanged.
  • Makes these matters final at this Court unless reopened by other procedure.
Topics: court orders, appeals process, rehearing denials, procedural rulings

Summary

Background

The opinion lists many docket numbers and concludes with a single action: “Petitions for rehearing denied.” The document does not describe the substance of the individual cases; it only records that a number of parties asked the Court to reconsider earlier decisions and that those requests were decided together in this order.

Reasoning

The core question presented to the Court here was whether to grant rehearing — that is, to reconsider previously issued decisions in the listed matters. The Court’s action was to deny those requests. The order gives no separate written explanation or new legal rule; it simply reports the Court’s collective decision to refuse rehearing for the listed cases, leaving the earlier outcomes intact.

Real world impact

For the people and entities involved in the listed dockets, this denial means the Court will not reexamine those specific decisions, so the prior rulings remain in effect as of this order. The decision is procedural: it ends further review at this Court for these cases unless some other extraordinary procedural step is taken. Because the opinion here contains only the denial and a list of dockets, it does not change legal rules beyond confirming that the Court declined to reopen these matters.

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?

Related Cases