The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began on October 1, 2001, and concluded on October 6, 2002.[1]
Because per curiam decisions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions all lack the attribution of authorship or joining votes to specific justices. All justices on the Court at the time the decision was handed down are assumed to have participated and concurred unless otherwise noted.
Contents |
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
| 534 U.S. 103
Decided November 27, 2001 Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. |
|
| 535 U.S. 229
Decided April 1, 2002 Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. In a tobacco-products liability suit brought by a foreign state against an American cigarette manufacturer, the Fifth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)[2] required the disqualification of the trial court judge because his name had appeared, albeit erroneously, prior to his appointment to the bench, on a motion to file an amicus curiae brief in a similar suit against some of the same defendants. The motion was submitted by an organization of which the judge had been president, but from which he had retired six months prior to its filing. The judge accordingly refused to disqualify himself because his name appeared in error on the motion to file the amicus brief and because he took no part in preparation or approval of the brief. The Fifth Circuit, however, ruled that his explanation would not "dissipate the doubts that a reasonable person would probably have about the court’s impartiality." The Supreme Court reversed, finding the Fifth Circuit's decision inconsistent with Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (1988), which stated that §455(a) requires judicial recusal "if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge" of his interest or bias in the case. The Court characterized the Fifth Circuit's decision as based on what "a reasonable person would believe without knowing (or giving due weight to the fact) that the judge’s name was added mistakenly and without his knowledge to a pro forma motion to file an amicus brief in a separate controversy." |
|
| 535 U.S. 682
Decided May 20, 2002 Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari following full briefing and oral argument, determining that the petitioners were the prevailing parties below, and sought review of findings that were not essential to the judgment and not binding upon them in future litigation. The Court stated that "[a]s a general rule, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment simply to obtain review of findings it deems erroneous." The Court noted that it had since granted certiorari in another case that arose in the same factual context to review the same issues. O'Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
|
| 536 U.S. 236
Decided June 17, 2002 Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. |
|
| 536 U.S. 635
Decided June 24, 2002 Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, reversed and remanded |
|
| 536 U.S. 856
Decided June 28, 2002 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. |
|
| 536 U.S. 862
Decided June 28, 2002 Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. |
|
|
||||||||