Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Certiorari

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 245 U.S. 489 - George Fuller Co v. Otis Elevator Co · 1918Most cited · 122 citing opinions

finality requirement

The writ when issued to the Court of Appeals is not limited to cases in which final judgment has been entered, but only to cases in which the judgment when entered is final.

How the Supreme Court has restated “Certiorari”

17731775180018251850187519001918 most cited: 245 U.S. 489 - George Fuller Co v. Otis Elevator Co (1918)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “Certiorari,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “Certiorari”

17701800185019001950200047

Court decisions citing the 4 opinions that defined “Certiorari” — 258 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 4 definitions, chronological · 1773–1918

  1. 1773·1 U.S. 22 - Anonymous[p4]· cited 1×
    ORIGINAL

    The proceedings, on a Habeas Corpus are de novo; on a certiorari, the court proceed on the state returned. Therefore, both writs cannot issue in the same cause; for the court cannot proceed de novo and on the old record too.

  2. 1799·3 U.S. 411 - Fowler v. Lindsey[p7]· cited 1×

    A certiorari, however, can only issue, as original process, to remove a cause, and change the venue, when the Superior Court is satisfied, that a fair and impartial trial will not otherwise be obtained; and it is sometimes used, as auxiliary process, where, for instance, diminution of the record is alledged, on a writ of error.

  3. This provision contemplates the employment of the writ of certiorari in instances not covered by § 240, and affords ample authority for using the writ as an auxiliary process, and, whenever there is imperative necessity therefor, as a means of correcting excesses of jurisdiction, of giving full force and effect to existing appellate authority, and of furthering justice in other kindred ways. But it may not be used under this provision as a substitute for an appeal or writ of error to correct mere errors committed in the exercise of a lawful jurisdiction.

    as auxiliary process