Coulter v. Illinois

2005-08-22
Share:

Headline: Court denies petitions for rehearing in numerous listed cases, refusing further review and leaving the prior orders and judgments in those matters undisturbed for now.

Holding: The Court denied the petitions for rehearing in the listed cases, issuing an order that refuses further Supreme Court review of those matters at this time.

Real World Impact:
  • Denies rehearing in the listed cases; no further Supreme Court review now.
  • Prior Supreme Court orders or judgments listed remain in effect for the time being.
  • The listed matters will not be reheard by this Court based on this order.
Topics: rehearing denied, procedural order, multiple cases

Summary

Background

The document lists many Supreme Court docket numbers and related citations, and it concludes with a short order: "Petitions for rehearing denied." The list includes multiple case numbers and references to pages and prior U.S. Reports citations that the Court considered before issuing the order.

Reasoning

This excerpt contains only an administrative order denying rehearing and does not include written opinions, explanations, or reasons for the denials. The text provides the procedural result—denial of rehearing—but it does not present the Justices’ legal analysis or separately published majority, concurring, or dissenting opinions in this excerpt.

Real world impact

By denying the petitions for rehearing, the Court will not reargue or reexamine these matters at the Supreme Court level as reflected here. The orders and judgments previously entered in those cases remain in effect insofar as this order communicates, and the listed cases will not be reheard by this Court based on this denial. The order is procedural and does not, in this text, announce new legal holdings or detailed changes to the law.

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