This still leaves the question why the Court wanted to reverse summarily rather than giving the case plenary consideration, a question we could ask every time the Court summarily reverses. I don't pretend to know the answer here (I'm not familiar with the case), but in general the relevant considerations are the supposed obviousness of the lower court's error, the absence of a circuit split or some other factor increasing the importance of the case, etc.
twm
At 02:48 PM 10/31/2003 -0600, you wrote:
The Court's first opinion of the term was released today:
Yarborough v. Gentry (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-1597.pdf ) - decision concerning effective assistance of counsel in a criminal case.
It's an 11-page per curiam opinion. I'm curious if anyone with more experience than I has any speculation why they adopted the "per curiam" form rather than having a judge take individualized responsibility for the opinion?
sandy
Assistant Professor of Law
Cornell Law School
116 Myron Taylor Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
607-255-9023
