GILLETTE CO.
v.
MINER

U.S. | 1982-12-06
No. 81-1493
459 U.S. 86 Supreme Court of the United States (1982) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 74 L. Ed. 2d 249 · 103 S. Ct. 484 · 1982 U.S. LEXIS 168 · SCDB 1982-008
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

There being no final judgment, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mintzes v. Buchanon, 471 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1985)
    …our writ of certiorari is still lodged in that court; at the very least, the Court should vacate its writ of certiorari. Cf. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn, 466 U. S. 521 (1984); Colorado v. Nunez, 465 U. S. 324 (1984); Gillette Co. v. Miner, 459 U. S. 86 (1982). The Court’s disposition leaves the status of the Court of Appeals’ judgment and opinion in limbo. I believe we have an institutional obligation to avoid such confusion. This is easily achieved by following what heretofore, with the exception…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw