Misplaced Pages

#846153

73-633: In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for

146-410: A Bill of Attainder . In a press release Nautilus noted that, "North Carolina...and state entities can sue others for copyright infringement and damages. However, U.S. citizens and corporations are legally barred from suing states or state entities for those very same copyright infringements or for damages!” Eight years after the law's passage, on June 30, 2023, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed

219-494: A certiorari petition. The Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari to resolve a " circuit split ", when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled differently in similar situations. These are often called "percolating issues". Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert. , and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as " cert. worthy". The granting of

292-586: A State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title. The CRCA has been struck down as unconstitutional by

365-434: A bill repealing Blackbeard's Law. Certiorari In law , certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency . Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ , issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made more certain", and comes from

438-528: A derelict vessel or shipwreck or its contents, relics, artifacts, or historic materials in the custody of any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall be a public record pursuant to Chapter 132 of the General Statutes." The state government of North Carolina accordingly uploaded videos of the wreck of the Queen Anne's Revenge to its website. Nautilus Productions , the company documenting

511-444: A final decision in the case. This is part of a general prohibition on interlocutory appeals in criminal matters. Certiorari is also available if a decision affects the rights of a third party who would not have standing to appeal the decision. The Supreme Court declined to decide whether certiorari would be available to address a legal error that threatens irreparable harm to a party's rights that could not be cured on appeal. In

584-456: A lower court decision. In English common law , certiorari was a supervisory writ, serving to keep "all inferior jurisdictions within the bounds of their authority ... [protecting] the liberty of the subject, by speedy and summary interposition". In England and Wales, the Court of King's Bench was tasked with the duty of supervising all lower courts, and had power to issue all writs necessary for

657-432: A mandatory review regime, in which the supreme court must take all appeals in order to preserve the loser's traditional right to one appeal (except in criminal cases where the defendant was acquitted). Virginia has an intermediate appeals court, but operates under discretionary review except in family law and administrative cases. Mandatory review remains in place in all states where the death penalty exists; in those states,

730-405: A public record pursuant to Chapter 132 of the General Statutes." The state government of North Carolina accordingly uploaded videos of the wreck of the Queen Anne's Revenge to its website. Nautilus Productions , the company documenting the recovery since 1998, filed suit in federal court over copyright violations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in 2019. On November 5, 2019

803-554: A sentence of death is automatically appealed to the state's highest court. In two states without an intermediate appeals court (New Hampshire and West Virginia), the Supreme Court used to operate under discretionary review in all cases, whether civil or criminal. This meant that there was no right of appeal in either state, with the only exception being death penalty cases in New Hampshire; West Virginia abolished its death penalty in 1965. New Hampshire transitioned to mandatory review for

SECTION 10

#1732848146847

876-457: A study detailing copyright infringements by state governments. The United States Copyright Office gave intellectual property owners suffering infringement by state entities until August 3, 2020 to publicly comment as part of this inquiry. In September 2020 the U.S. Copyright Office began publishing comments where the copyright industry alleged hundreds of copyright violations by state entities across decades, while libraries and state entities denied

949-526: A violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title. The CRCA has been struck down as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Allen v. Cooper (March 23, 2020). The Supreme Court decision followed district and appellate courts in

1022-422: A writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court disagrees with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that at least four of the justices have determined that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant review by the Court. Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that

1095-650: Is an issue worthy of congressional action." As a result of the ruling Nautilus filed a motion for reconsideration in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On August 18, 2021 Judge Terrence Boyle granted the motion for reconsideration which North Carolina promptly appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The 4th Circuit denied

1168-462: Is available as a matter of right. Before the Judiciary Act of 1891 , the cases that could reach the Supreme Court were heard as a matter of right, meaning that the Court was required to issue a decision in each of those cases. That is, the Court had to review all properly presented appeals on the merits, hear oral argument, and issue decisions. As the United States expanded in the nineteenth century,

1241-629: Is clear that the Murray State University Board of Regents and the Commonwealth of Kentucky remain the real parties in interest to this action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s amendments in his Second Amended Complaint. We therefore lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case given that none of the exceptions to the state's sovereign immunity apply here. See Philpot v. WUIS/University of Illinois Springfield , 2015 WL 5037551 (Aug. 25, 2015) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction). The CRCA attempt

1314-463: Is considered the Commonwealth of Kentucky for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Jackson v. Murray State Univ. , 834 F. Supp. 2d. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Murray State University Board of Regents and the Commonwealth of Kentucky remain the real parties in interest to this action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s amendments in his Second Amended Complaint. We therefore lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case given that none of

1387-740: Is recognized in many jurisdictions , including England and Wales (now called a "quashing order"), Canada , India , Ireland , the Philippines and the United States . With the expansion of administrative law in the 19th and 20th centuries, the writ of certiorari has gained broader use in many countries, to review the decisions of administrative bodies as well as lower courts. The term certiorari (US English: / ˌ s ɜːr ʃ i ə ˈ r ɛər i / , /- ˈ r ɑː r ɪ / , or /- ˈ r ɛər aɪ / ; UK English: / ˌ s ɜːr t i oʊ ˈ r ɛər aɪ / or /- ˈ r ɑː r ɪ / ) comes from

1460-563: The Progress Clause or otherwise. The brief by a law professor stated that there was no copyright infringement in the first place, under de minimis and fair use . Following the ruling, Senators Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), of the intellectual property subcommittee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requesting

1533-812: The United States Chamber of Commerce , the Recording Industry Association of America , the Copyright Alliance , the Software and Information Industry Association , and the National Press Photographers Association . Those briefs proposed various doctrines under which the CRCA could validly abrogate sovereign immunity and variously re-asserted and supported the reasons why Congress examined and enacted CRCA, claiming that Congress

SECTION 20

#1732848146847

1606-638: The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 11th Circuits. The 11th Circuit did not strike down the CRCA but did not allow it to be used to avoid sovereign immunity on the facts that were before it. A case in the 9th Circuit settled before decision. Courts have generally followed the logic applied by the US Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe v. Florida , and applied in the patent context in Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank , 527 U.S. 627 (1999). In these cases

1679-457: The CRCA could validly abrogate sovereign immunity and variously re-asserted and supported the reasons why Congress examined and enacted CRCA, claiming that Congress was fair in finding that states had abused immunity and that an alternative remedy was needed. The brief by APLU and AAU stated the opposite on all counts. 30 states also filed a brief in support of Cooper, denying that the states had ever given up their sovereign immunity by ratifying

1752-452: The CRCA, one district court upheld the Act in 2017 and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals should rule on an appeal from that decision in mid to late 2018. Several cases upheld the sovereign immunity of state universities in particular. Legal scholars Paul J. Heald and Michael Wells wrote that the majority of lower courts that have addressed the question have assumed state universities to be arms of

1825-601: The Civil Procedure (Modification of Supreme Court Act 1981) Order 2004, which amended the Senior Courts Act 1981 . The Constitution of India vests the power to issue certiorari in the Supreme Court of India , for the purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution . The Parliament of India has the authority to give a similar certiorari power to any other court to enforce

1898-599: The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. In other words, the CRCA is unconstitutional. Congress failed to provide evidence to support the need to abrogate sovereign immunity. The case had received broad participation. The American Library Association and others filed an amicus brief siding with the state, saying that " state-run libraries and archives have not abused state sovereign immunity; copyright holders have sufficient means of enforcing their rights against state-run libraries and archives; elimination of

1971-422: The Court has jurisdiction and which the Court considers sufficiently important, such as cases involving deep constitutional questions, to merit the use of its limited resources, utilizing tools such as the cert pool . While both appeals of right and cert petitions often present several alleged errors of the lower courts for appellate review, the court normally grants review of only one or two questions presented in

2044-651: The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from using its Article I powers to abrogate states' sovereign immunity (a holding that later Supreme Court cases such as Central Virginia Community College v. Katz have qualified), and that the Patent Remedy Clarification Act did not have a sufficient basis to meet Fourteenth Amendment requirements. Although most courts have refused to enforce

2117-525: The Court of Appeals opinion correctly stated the law. Thus, since June 1927, over 4,100 decisions of the Texas Courts of Appeals have become valid binding precedent of the Texas Supreme Court itself because the high court refused applications for writ of error rather than denying them and thereby signaled that it approved of their holdings as the law of the state. While Texas' unique practice saved

2190-454: The Crown in motion. In Australia, the power to issue certiorari is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts . In Canada, certiorari is a rarely-used power, part of the inherent jurisdiction of the superior courts. It is usually used to cancel a lower court's decision because of an obvious mistake. In R. v. Awashish, 2018 SCC 45, the Supreme Court of Canada restricted

2263-456: The Patent Remedy Clarification Act did not have a sufficient basis to meet Fourteenth Amendment requirements. Although most courts have refused to enforce the CRCA, one district court upheld the Act in 2017 and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals should rule on an appeal from that decision in mid to late 2018. Several cases upheld the sovereign immunity of state universities in particular. Legal scholars Paul J. Heald and Michael Wells wrote that

Copyright Remedy Clarification Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2336-456: The Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. As the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins , such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case". In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in

2409-408: The Supreme Court. A "petition" is printed in booklet format and 40 copies are filed with the Court. If the Court grants the petition, the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. A minimum of four of the nine justices is required to grant a writ of certiorari , referred to as the " rule of four ". The court denies the vast majority of petitions and thus leaves the decision of

2482-490: The U.S. Copyright Office began publishing comments where the copyright industry alleged hundreds of copyright violations by state entities across decades, while libraries and state entities denied the significance or intentionality of the alleged infringements. The subsequent report, issued on August 31, 2021 by the U.S. Copyright Office, referenced 132 copyright lawsuits filed against state entities and stated that "The Office..continues to believe that infringement by state entities

2555-568: The United States Constitution , which describes the judicial branch of the US federal government , wrote: In every judicial department, well arranged and well organized, there should be a regular, progressive, gradation of jurisdiction; and one supreme tribunal should superintend and govern all the others. An arrangement in this manner is proper for two reasons: If no superintending tribunal of this nature were established, different courts might adopt different and even contradictory rules of decision; and

2628-607: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On August 18, 2021 Judge Terrence Boyle granted the motion for reconsideration which North Carolina promptly appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The 4th Circuit denied the state's motion on October 14, 2022. Nautilus then filed their second amended complaint on February 8, 2023 alleging 5th and 14th Amendment violations of Nautilus' constitutional rights, additional copyright violations, and claiming that North Carolina's "Blackbeard's Law," N.C. General Statute §121-25(b), represents

2701-449: The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allen v. Cooper . On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Allen v. Cooper , holding that Congress had no Constitutional authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act. In other words, the CRCA is unconstitutional. Congress failed to provide evidence to support

2774-418: The United States Supreme Court in Allen v. Cooper (March 23, 2020). The Supreme Court decision followed district and appellate courts in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, and 11th Circuits. The 11th Circuit did not strike down the CRCA but did not allow it to be used to avoid sovereign immunity on the facts that were before it. A case in the 9th Circuit settled before decision. Courts have generally followed

2847-526: The United States for judicial review of decisions made by an administrative agency after an adversarial hearing. Some states have retained this use of the writ of certiorari in state courts, while others have replaced it with statutory procedures. In the federal courts, this use of certiorari has been abolished and replaced by a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act in a United States district court or in some circumstances

2920-530: The case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case. Some United States state court systems use

2993-553: The courts of England and Wales, the remedy of certiorari evolved into a general remedy for the correction of plain error , to bring decisions of an inferior court, tribunal, or public authority before the superior court for review so that the court can determine whether to quash such decisions. Reflecting this evolution in usage as a remedy after judicial review nullifying a decision of a public body, in England and Wales, orders or writs of certiorari were renamed " quashing orders " by

Copyright Remedy Clarification Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3066-412: The decision does not pass the test, it is quashed – that is to say, it is declared completely invalid, so that no one need respect it. The underlying policy is that all inferior courts and authorities have only limited jurisdiction or powers and must be kept within their legal bounds. This is the concern of the Crown, for the sake of orderly administration of justice, but it is a private complaint which sets

3139-476: The decisions of the courts of appeals at its discretion through writ of certiorari . Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, most cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in

3212-515: The discharge of that duty; the justices of that Court appeared to have no discretion as to whether it was heard, as long as an application for a bill of certiorari met established criteria, as it arose from their duty of supervision. As time went on, certiorari evolved into an important rule of law remedy: Certiorari is used to bring up into the High Court the decision of some inferior tribunal or authority in order that it may be investigated. If

3285-466: The distractions, springing from these different and contradictory rules, would be without remedy and without end. Opposite determinations of the same question, in different courts, would be equally final and irreversible. In the United States, certiorari is most often seen as the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to a lower court to review the lower court's judgment for legal error ( reversible error ) and review where no appeal

3358-430: The district of the Court of Appeals in which it was decided, or binding precedent for the entire state. In contrast, California, Florida, and New York solved the problem of creating uniform precedent by simply holding that the first intermediate appellate court to reach a novel question of law always sets binding precedent for the entire state, unless and until another intermediate appellate court expressly disagrees with

3431-572: The exceptions to the state's sovereign immunity apply here. See Philpot v. WUIS/University of Illinois Springfield , 2015 WL 5037551 (Aug. 25, 2015) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction). The CRCA attempt was repeated by Congress with the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001. The North Carolina Legislature passed " Blackbeard's Law ", N.C. General Statute §121-25(b), which stated, "All photographs, video recordings, or other documentary materials of

3504-420: The federal judicial system became increasingly strained, and the Supreme Court had a backlog of cases several years long. The Act solved these problems by transferring most of the court's direct appeals to the newly created circuit courts of appeals , whose decisions in those cases would normally be final. The Supreme Court did not completely give up its judiciary authority because it gained the ability to review

3577-401: The first one. Meanwhile, some states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey , avoid the issue entirely by eschewing regionalized appellate courts; the intermediate appellate courts in these states may hear cases from all parts of the state within their subject-matter jurisdiction. In the administrative law context, the common-law writ of certiorari was historically used by lower courts in

3650-579: The first place, under de minimis and fair use . Following the ruling, Senators Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), of the intellectual property subcommittee on the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent letters to the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requesting a study detailing copyright infringements by state governments. The United States Copyright Office gave intellectual property owners suffering infringement by state entities until August 3, 2020 to publicly comment as part of this inquiry. In September 2020

3723-572: The fundamental rights, in addition to the certiorari power of the Supreme Court. In addition to the power to issue certiorari to protect fundamental rights, the Supreme Court and the High Courts all have jurisdiction to issue certiorari for the protection of other legal rights. When the Supreme Court of New Zealand was established a superior court in 1841, it had inherent jurisdiction to issue certiorari to control inferior courts and tribunals. The common law jurisdiction to issue certiorari

SECTION 50

#1732848146847

3796-435: The law's passage, on June 30, 2023, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper signed a bill repealing Blackbeard's Law. Allen v. Cooper The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act ( CRCA ) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a): In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of

3869-485: The logic applied by the US Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe v. Florida , and applied in the patent context in Florida Prepaid v. College Savings Bank , 527 U.S. 627 (1999). In these cases the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from using its Article I powers to abrogate states' sovereign immunity (a holding that later Supreme Court cases such as Central Virginia Community College v. Katz have qualified), and that

3942-462: The lower court to stand without review; it takes roughly 80 to 150 cases each term. In the term that concluded in June 2009, for example, 8,241 petitions were filed, with a grant rate of approximately 1.1 percent. Cases on the paid certiorari docket are substantially more likely to be granted than those on the in forma pauperis docket. The Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases over which

4015-416: The majority of lower courts that have addressed the question have assumed state universities to be arms of the state for the purpose of asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. Putting aside until later the case of state officials sued in their official capacities, an entity that successfully proves it is an arm of the state presumptively is entitled to absolute immunity from suit in federal court, irrespective of

4088-469: The nature of the cause of action pleaded against it. Further, cases for copyright violation by university radio stations were also dismissed as the radio, funded mostly by the university, was found to enjoy the same immunity. Here, the evidence is convincing and clear that WKMS is both financially and operationally dependent on the University and its Board of Regents, which, as we have already established,

4161-576: The need to abrogate sovereign immunity. The case had received broad participation. The American Library Association and others filed an amicus brief siding with the state, saying that " state-run libraries and archives have not abused state sovereign immunity; copyright holders have sufficient means of enforcing their rights against state-run libraries and archives; elimination of the sovereign immunity for copyright claims would endanger digital preservation efforts by state-run libraries and archives". Thirteen amici filed briefs in support of Allen, including

4234-501: The opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words " Certiorari volumus ..." ("We wish to be made more certain..."). Derived from the English common law , certiorari is prevalent in countries using, or influenced by, the common law . It has evolved in the legal system of each nation, as court decisions and statutory amendments are made. In modern law, certiorari

4307-436: The radio, funded mostly by the university, was found to enjoy the same immunity. Here, the evidence is convincing and clear that WKMS is both financially and operationally dependent on the University and its Board of Regents, which, as we have already established, is considered the Commonwealth of Kentucky for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Jackson v. Murray State Univ. , 834 F. Supp. 2d. Based on this evidence, it

4380-444: The recovery since 1998, filed suit in federal court over copyright violations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in 2019. On November 5, 2019 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allen v. Cooper . On March 23, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion in Allen v. Cooper , holding that Congress had no Constitutional authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity via

4453-467: The same terminology, but in others, writ of review , leave to appeal , or certification for appeal is used in place of writ of certiorari as the name for discretionary review of a lower court's judgment. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania uniquely uses the terms allocatur (informally) and "allowance of appeal" (formally) for the same process. A handful of states lack intermediate appellate courts; in most of these, their supreme courts operate under

SECTION 60

#1732848146847

4526-415: The significance or intentionality of the alleged infringements. The subsequent report, issued on August 31, 2021 by the U.S. Copyright Office, referenced 132 copyright lawsuits filed against state entities and stated that "The Office..continues to believe that infringement by state entities is an issue worthy of congressional action." As a result of the ruling Nautilus filed a motion for reconsideration in

4599-463: The sovereign immunity for copyright claims would endanger digital preservation efforts by state-run libraries and archives". Thirteen amici filed briefs in support of Allen, including the United States Chamber of Commerce , the Recording Industry Association of America , the Copyright Alliance , the Software and Information Industry Association , and the National Press Photographers Association . Those briefs proposed various doctrines under which

4672-456: The state for the purpose of asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. Putting aside until later the case of state officials sued in their official capacities, an entity that successfully proves it is an arm of the state presumptively is entitled to absolute immunity from suit in federal court, irrespective of the nature of the cause of action pleaded against it. Further, cases for copyright violation by university radio stations were also dismissed as

4745-474: The state supreme court from having to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents on those issues, it also makes for lengthy citations to the opinions of the Courts of Appeals, since the subsequent writ history of the case must always be noted (e.g., no writ, writ refused, writ denied, etc.) in order for the reader to determine at a glance whether the cited opinion is binding precedent only in

4818-652: The state's motion on October 14, 2022. Nautilus then filed their second amended complaint on February 8, 2023 alleging 5th and 14th Amendment violations of Nautilus' constitutional rights, additional copyright violations, and claiming that North Carolina's "Blackbeard's Law," N.C. General Statute §121-25(b), represents a Bill of Attainder . In a press release Nautilus noted that, "North Carolina...and state entities can sue others for copyright infringement and damages. However, U.S. citizens and corporations are legally barred from suing states or state entities for those very same copyright infringements or for damages!” Eight years after

4891-406: The use of certiorari in criminal matters. It ruled that certiorari can only be used to correct jurisdictional errors, i.e. when a court makes a decision that is out of its power to make; it cannot be used to correct legal errors, i.e. where a court makes a decision it is allowed to make, but decides incorrectly. The latter type of error can only be challenged through an appeal, once the court makes

4964-403: The use of the new application for review, the writs would cease to be used. The Philippines has adapted the extraordinary writ of certiorari in civil actions under its Rules of Court , as the procedure to seek judicial review from the Supreme Court of the Philippines . As Associate Justice James Wilson (1742–1798), the person primarily responsible for the drafting of Article Three of

5037-613: The vast majority of cases beginning in 2004, while West Virginia transitioned to mandatory review for all cases beginning in 2010. Texas is an unusual exception to the rule that denial of certiorari by the state supreme court normally does not imply approval or disapproval of the merits of the lower court's decision. In March 1927, the Texas Legislature enacted a law directing the Texas Supreme Court to summarily refuse to hear applications for writs of error when it believed

5110-517: The words used at the beginning of these writs when they were written in Latin: certiorari [volumus] "[we wish] to be made more certain". Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin verb certioro, certiorare ("to inform, apprise, show"). It is often abbreviated cert. in the United States, particularly in relation to applications to the Supreme Court of the United States for review of

5183-406: Was fair in finding that states had abused immunity and that an alternative remedy was needed. The brief by APLU and AAU stated the opposite on all counts. 30 states also filed a brief in support of Cooper, denying that the states had ever given up their sovereign immunity by ratifying the Progress Clause or otherwise. The brief by a law professor stated that there was no copyright infringement in

5256-539: Was modified by statute in 1972, when the New Zealand Parliament passed the Judicature Amendment Act . This Act created a new procedural mechanism, known as an "application for review", which could be used in place of certiorari and the other prerogative writs. The Judicature Amendment Act did not abolish certiorari and the other writs, but it was expected that as the legal profession adapted to

5329-448: Was repeated by Congress with the Intellectual Property Protection Restoration Act of 2001. The North Carolina Legislature passed " Blackbeard's Law ", N.C. General Statute §121-25(b), which stated, "All photographs, video recordings, or other documentary materials of a derelict vessel or shipwreck or its contents, relics, artifacts, or historic materials in the custody of any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall be

#846153