The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title V
JUDICIAL BRANCH

Chapter 38
JUDGES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

View Entire Chapter

CHAPTER 38

JUDGES: GENERAL PROVISIONS

38.01 Disqualification when judge party; effect of attempted judicial acts.

38.02 Suggestion of disqualification; grounds; proceedings on suggestion and effect.

38.03 Waiver of grounds of disqualification by parties.

38.04 Sworn statement by judge holding himself or herself qualified.

38.05 Disqualification of judge on own motion.

38.06 Effect of acts where judge fails to disqualify himself or herself.

38.07 Effect of orders entered prior to disqualification; petition for reconsideration.

38.08 Effect of orders where petition for reconsideration not filed.

38.09 Designation of judge to hear cause when order of disqualification entered.

38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.

38.12 Resignation, death, or removal of judges; disposition of pending matters and papers.

38.22 Power to punish contempts.

38.23 Contempt defined.

38.01 Disqualification when judge party; effect of attempted judicial acts.—Every judge of this state who appears of record as a party to any cause before him or her shall be disqualified to act therein, and shall forthwith enter an order declaring himself or herself to be disqualified in said cause. Any and all attempted judicial acts by any judge so disqualified in a cause, whether done inadvertently or otherwise, shall be utterly null and void and of no effect. No judge shall be disqualified from sitting in the trial of any suit in which any county or municipal corporation is a party by reason that such judge is a resident or taxpayer within such county or municipal corporation.

History.—s. 2, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(1); s. 1, ch. 59-43; s. 205, ch. 95-147.

38.02 Suggestion of disqualification; grounds; proceedings on suggestion and effect.—In any cause in any of the courts of this state any party to said cause, or any person or corporation interested in the subject matter of such litigation, may at any time before final judgment, if the case be one at law, and at any time before final decree, if the case be one in chancery, show by a suggestion filed in the cause that the judge before whom the cause is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto, or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in said cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to said cause, but such an order shall not be subject to collateral attack. Such suggestions shall be filed in the cause within 30 days after the party filing the suggestion, or the party’s attorney, or attorneys, of record, or either of them, learned of such disqualification, otherwise the ground, or grounds, of disqualification shall be taken and considered as waived. If the truth of any suggestion appear from the record in said cause, the said judge shall forthwith enter an order reciting the filing of the suggestion, the grounds of his or her disqualification, and declaring himself or herself to be disqualified in said cause. If the truth of any such suggestion does not appear from the record in said cause, the judge may by order entered therein require the filing in the cause of affidavits touching the truth or falsity of such suggestion. If the judge finds that the suggestion is true, he or she shall forthwith enter an order reciting the ground of his or her disqualification and declaring himself or herself disqualified in the cause; if the judge finds that the suggestion is false, he or she shall forthwith enter the order so reciting and declaring himself or herself to be qualified in the cause. Any such order declaring a judge to be disqualified shall not be subject to collateral attack nor shall it be subject to review. Any such order declaring a judge qualified shall not be subject to collateral attack but shall be subject to review by the court having appellate jurisdiction of the cause in connection with which the order was entered.

History.—s. 3, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(2); s. 1, ch. 26890, 1951; s. 6, ch. 63-559; s. 206, ch. 95-147.

38.03 Waiver of grounds of disqualification by parties.—The parties to any cause, or their attorneys of record, may, by written stipulation filed in the cause, waive any of the grounds of disqualification named in s. 38.02 and such waiver shall be valid and binding as to orders previously entered as well as to future acts of the judge therein; provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent a judge from disqualifying himself or herself of his or her own motion under s. 38.05.

History.—s. 4, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(3); s. 207, ch. 95-147.

38.04 Sworn statement by judge holding himself or herself qualified.—Whenever any judge shall enter an order under s. 38.02 declaring qualification to act in said cause, he or she shall contemporaneously therewith file therein a sworn statement that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief the ground or grounds of the disqualification named in the suggestion do not exist.

History.—s. 5, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(4); s. 208, ch. 95-147.

38.05 Disqualification of judge on own motion.—Any judge may of his or her own motion disqualify himself or herself where, to the judge’s own knowledge, any of the grounds for a suggestion of disqualification, as named in s. 38.02, exist. The failure of a judge to so disqualify himself or herself under this section shall not be assignable as error or subject to review.

History.—s. 6, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(5); s. 6, ch. 63-559; s. 209, ch. 95-147.

38.06 Effect of acts where judge fails to disqualify himself or herself.—In any cause where the grounds for a suggestion of disqualification, as set forth in s. 38.02, appear of record in the cause, but no suggestion of disqualification is filed therein, the orders, judgments, and decrees entered therein by the judge shall be valid. Where, on a suggestion of disqualification the judge enters an order declaring himself or herself qualified, the orders, judgments, and decrees entered therein by the said judge shall not be void and shall not be subject to collateral attack.

History.—s. 7, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(6); s. 210, ch. 95-147.

38.07 Effect of orders entered prior to disqualification; petition for reconsideration.—When orders have been entered in any cause by a judge prior to the entry of any order of disqualification under s. 38.02 or s. 38.05, any party to the cause may, within 30 days after the filing in the cause of the order of the chief judge of the circuit or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as provided for in s. 38.09, petition the judge so designated for a reconsideration of the orders entered by the disqualified judge prior to the date of the entry of the order of disqualification. Such a petition shall set forth with particularity the matters of law or fact to be relied upon as grounds for the modification or vacation of the orders. Such a petition shall be granted as a matter of right. Upon the granting of the petition, notice of the time and place of the hearing thereon, together with a copy of the petition, shall be mailed by the attorney, or attorneys, of record for the petitioners to the other attorney or attorneys of record, or to the party or parties if they have no attorneys of record. This notice shall be mailed at least 8 days prior to the date fixed by the judge for the hearing. The judge before whom the cause is then pending may, after the hearing, affirm, approve, confirm, reenter, modify, or vacate the orders.

History.—s. 8, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(7); s. 10, ch. 63-572; s. 30, ch. 81-259; s. 1, ch. 83-260.

38.08 Effect of orders where petition for reconsideration not filed.—If no petition for reconsideration is filed, as provided for in s. 38.07, all orders entered by the disqualified judge prior to the entry of the order of disqualification shall be as binding and valid as if said orders had been duly entered by a qualified judge authorized to act in the cause. The fact that an order was entered by a judge who is subsequently disqualified under s. 38.02 or s. 38.05, shall not be assignable as error subject to review by the appropriate appellate court unless a petition for reconsideration as provided for in s. 38.07, was filed by the party urging the matter as error, and the judge before whom the cause was then pending refused to vacate or modify said order.

History.—s. 9, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(8); s. 6, ch. 63-559.

38.09 Designation of judge to hear cause when order of disqualification entered.—Every judge of this state shall advise the chief judge of the circuit upon the entry of an order of disqualification. An order of assignment shall then be entered as provided by the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. In the event any judge is disqualified as herein provided, upon application for any temporary writ of injunction or habeas corpus, the judge shall immediately enter an order of disqualification, whereupon the cause may be presented to any other judge of a court of the same jurisdiction as the court in which that cause is pending; and it shall be the duty of any such judge to hear and determine such matters until a substitute judge is so designated.

History.—s. 10, ch. 16053, 1933; CGL 1936 Supp. 4155(9); s. 11, ch. 63-572; s. 20, ch. 73-333; s. 2, ch. 83-260; s. 211, ch. 95-147.

38.10 Disqualification of judge for prejudice; application; affidavits; etc.—Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the presiding judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has been assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

History.—s. 4, ch. 7852, 1919; RGS 2674; s. 1, ch. 9276, 1923; CGL 4341; s. 3, ch. 83-260; s. 212, ch. 95-147.

38.12 Resignation, death, or removal of judges; disposition of pending matters and papers.—Upon the resignation, death, or impeachment of any judge, all matters pending before that judge shall be heard and determined by the judge’s successor, and parties making any motion before such judge shall suffer no detriment by reason of his or her resignation, death, or impeachment. All judges, upon resignation or impeachment, shall file all papers pending before them with the clerk of the court in which the cause is pending; and the executor or administrator of any judge who dies pending any matter before him or her shall file all papers found among the papers of his or her intestate or testator with the said clerk.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 3007, 1877; RS 971, 972; GS 1341, 1342; RGS 2529, 2530; CGL 4156, 4157; s. 4, ch. 73-334; s. 1331, ch. 95-147.

38.22 Power to punish contempts.—Every court may punish contempts against it whether such contempts be direct, indirect, or constructive, and in any such proceeding the court shall proceed to hear and determine all questions of law and fact.

History.—s. 1, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 975; GS 1345; RGS 2534; CGL 4161; s. 1, ch. 23004, 1945; s. 4, ch. 73-334.

38.23 Contempt defined.—A refusal to obey any legal order, mandate or decree, made or given by any judge relative to any of the business of the court, after due notice thereof, is a contempt, punishable accordingly.

History.—s. 2, Nov. 23, 1828; RS 976; GS 1346; RGS 2535; CGL 4162; s. 8, ch. 2013-25.

F.S. 38 on Google Scholar

F.S. 38 on Casetext

Amendments to 38

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 38

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S38.22 - CONTEMPT OF COURT - NO OFF OR PENALTY - F: F

S38.22 - CONTEMPT OF COURT - NO OFF OR PENALTY - M: S

S38.22 - CONTEMPT OF COURT - CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - N: N

S198.38 - FRAUD - MAKE FALSE FRAUDULENT ESTATE TAX RETURN - F: T

S320.38 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - VIOL NONRESIDENT EXEMPTION FROM REGIS - M: S

S322.38 - NONMOVING TRAFFIC VIOL - FAIL TO KEEP VEHICLE RENTAL RECORDS - M: S

S322.38 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL VIOL - M: S

S322.38 3 - PUBLIC ORDER CRIMES - FAIL TO KEEP VEHICLE RENTAL RECORDS - M: S

S327.38 - HEALTH-SAFETY - WATER SKI WHILE UNDER INFLUENCE LIQUOR DRUGS - M: S

S585.38 - DAMAGE PROP - INJURE PROP USED IN CATTLE DISEASE ERADICATION - M: F

S817.38 - PASS FORGED - CIRCULATE SIMULATED COURT PROCESS - M: S

S876.38 - SOVEREIGNTY - INJURE INTERFERE W PROP FOR DEFENSE WAR - F: L

Civil Citations / Citable Offenses under S38

R or S next to points is Mandatory Revocation or Suspension

S320.38 NONRESIDENT TAG EXEMPTION not allowed. (Florida tag required within 10 days if employed in Florida/enters children in public schools) - Migrant farm workers/seasonal farm workers/some students exempt. - Points on Drivers License: 0

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY v. SISOLAK,, 140 S. Ct. 2603 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Electronic Court Filing in No. 3:20-CV-00303, Doc. 38-31, 2020 WL 4260438 (D Nev., June 4, 2020), p. . . . ECF Doc. 38-2, § 11. . . . 28, and most notably, casinos, which have operated at 50% capacity for over a month, § 35; ECF Doc. 38 . . . ECF Doc. 38-9, p. 4. . . . ECF Doc. 38-6, p. 44. . . . ECF Doc. 38-5, p. 9. . . .

J. TRUMP, v. R. VANCE, Jr., 140 S. Ct. 2412 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 278 U.S. 96, 100-101, 49 S.Ct. 38, 73 L.Ed. 200 (1928) (recognizing that the United States . . .

MCGIRT, v. OKLAHOMA, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Fink , 247 U.S. 288, 294, 38 S.Ct. 516, 62 L.Ed. 1117 (1918). . . .

OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL, v. MORRISSEY- BERRU St. v., 140 S. Ct. 2049 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See, e.g ., Mark 9:5, 11:21; John 1:38, 3:26, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2. . . .

P. BARR, v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF POLITICAL CONSULTANTS, INC., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. . . .

ESPINOZA, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Legal Hist. 38, 54 (1992) (quoting article; internal quotation marks omitted). . . . Brief for Respondents 38. . . . See Brief for State of Colorado et al. as Amici Curiae 3, 10-12 (arguing that Locke justifies the 38 . . .

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, v. BOOKING. COM B. V., 140 S. Ct. 2298 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Brief for Petitioners 38. . . .

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO, v. LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Raich , 239 U.S. 33, 38-39, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131 (1915) ; Pierce v. . . . Tucker Truck Lines, Inc. , 344 U.S. 33, 38, 73 S.Ct. 67, 97 L.Ed. 54 (1952) (citing United States v. . . . II, §§ 37, 38 (1854); Wis. Rev. Stat., ch. 164, §§ 10, 11, ch. 169, §§ 58, 59 (1858). . . . Littleton , 414 U.S. 488, 501-502, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974) ; Winter v. . . . illustrate how these criteria impacted abortion providers, we noted the example of an obstetrician with 38 . . .

SEILA LAW LLC, v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (U.S. 2020)

. . . two questions to this Court: (1) whether § 1 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, ch. 311, 38 . . . See Act of Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251. . . . Act of Sept. 26, 1914, § 5, 38 Stat. 719. . . . See § 5, 38 Stat. 720; FTC v. . . . See § 6(g), 38 Stat. 722; National Petroleum Refiners Assn. v. . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. THURAISSIGIAM, 140 S. Ct. 1959 (U.S. 2020)

. . . App. 38. . . . Brief for Respondent 38-45. . . . See Tr. of Oral Arg. 14-15, 23-24; Brief for Petitioners 38. . . . In re Bonner , 151 U.S. 242, 261, 14 S.Ct. 323, 38 L.Ed. 149 (1894). . . .

C. LIU, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Adams , 151 U.S. 139, 148, 14 S.Ct. 295, 38 L.Ed. 103 (1894) ; Belknap v. . . . Adams , 151 U.S. 139, 148, 14 S.Ct. 295, 38 L.Ed. 103 (1894) (reversing profits award that was based . . .

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, J. v., 140 S. Ct. 1891 (U.S. 2020)

. . . 1982 be equipped with one of two passive restraints: airbags or automatic seatbelts. 463 U.S. at 37-38 . . . Id. , at 38, 103 S.Ct. 2856. We concluded that the total rescission was arbitrary and capricious. . . .

BOSTOCK, v. CLAYTON COUNTY, GEORGIA v. Jr. Co- R. G. G. R. v., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (U.S. 2020)

. . . attraction as a "sexual deviation," a particular type of "sociopathic personality disturbance," id. , at 38 . . . E vij b, Ye magnificency & liberalitie of that gentle sex. 1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 38 Strong Sampson . . .

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, v. COWPASTURE RIVER PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION LLC, v., 140 S. Ct. 1837 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for Petitioner Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC, 38; Brief for Federal Petitioners 45-46; Brief . . .

ROGERS, v. GREWAL,, 140 S. Ct. 1865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Sir John Knight , 1 Comb. 38, 39, 90 Eng. Rep. 330 (1686). . . .

GE ENERGY POWER CONVERSION FRANCE SAS, CORP. SAS, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC,, 140 S. Ct. 1637 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Asimco Int'l, Inc. , 526 F.3d 38, 48 (CA1 2008). . . .

NASRALLAH, v. P. BARR,, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481, n. 1, 483-484, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). . . .

SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH, v. NEWSOM,, 140 S. Ct. 1613 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Massachusetts , 197 U.S. 11, 38, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905). . . . United States , 414 U.S. 417, 427, 94 S.Ct. 700, 38 L.Ed.2d 618 (1974). . . .

P. GREINER, v. MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN,, 140 S. Ct. 2802 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until June 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

RUTTKAMP, v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,, 140 S. Ct. 2759 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until June 8, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

WEIXING WANG, v. MARCOTTE., 140 S. Ct. 2759 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until June 8, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

WEEKS, v. PAYNE,, 140 S. Ct. 2794 (U.S. 2020)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE CIOTTA,, 140 S. Ct. 2796 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE WOODSON,, 140 S. Ct. 2755 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MAINE COMMUNITY HEALTH OPTIONS, v. UNITED STATES v. v. v., 140 S. Ct. 1308 (U.S. 2020)

. . . . § 12573 ; 38 U.S.C. § 5317A ; 42 U.S.C. §§ 303, 624, 655, 677, 1203, 1353, 1396b, 8623, 12622, 16014 . . . 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070g-1, 1078, 3988, 5607 ; 22 U.S.C. § 3681 ; 30 U.S.C. § 1240a ; 31 U.S.C. § 3343 ; 38 . . . U.S.C. § 1542 ; 42 U.S.C. §§ 290bb-38, 295h, 618, 5318a, 15093 ; 43 U.S.C. §§ 1356a, 1619 ; 46 U.S.C . . .

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK,, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See 38 N.Y.C.R.R. § 5-01 et seq. (2020); N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 265.00(10); N.Y.C. Admin. . . . against the City and the NYPD License Division, contending that the restrictive premises license scheme, 38 . . . outside the City must be "direc[t]" and travel within the City must be "continuous and uninterrupted." 38 . . . Petitioners' prayer for relief asks the court to enjoin 38 N.Y.C.R.R. § 5-23 insofar as it "prohibit[ . . . For a similar reason, 38 N.Y.C.R.R. § 5-23 also violated the Second Amendment. . . .

IN RE DEVILLE,, 140 S. Ct. 2717 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until May 18, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

FOX, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,, 140 S. Ct. 2732 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

ROMAG FASTENERS, INC. v. FOSSIL, INC., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Wade , 461 U.S. 30, 38-51, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632 (1983) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ); Morissette v. . . .

THRYV, INC. v. CLICK- TO- CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP,, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Catholic Social Services, Inc. , 509 U.S. 43, 64, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993) (internal quotation . . .

RAMOS, v. LOUISIANA, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020)

. . . See Brief for Respondent 47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38. . . . See Brief for Respondent 47; Tr. of Oral Arg. 37-38. See Grutter v. . . .

BAKER, v. MACY S FLORIDA STORES, LLC., 140 S. Ct. 2666 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until May 11, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

HILL- LOMAX, v. VITTETOE,, 140 S. Ct. 2667 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until May 11, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). . . .

L. RENDELMAN, v. TRUE,, 140 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

HETTINGA, v. ARCADIA MANAGEMENT SERVICES CO., 140 S. Ct. 2563 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until April 20, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

P. WESTRUM, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD., 140 S. Ct. 2563 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until April 20, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

COMCAST CORPORATION, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN AMERICAN- OWNED MEDIA,, 140 S. Ct. 1009 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Warley , 245 U.S. 60, 78-79, 38 S.Ct. 16, 62 L.Ed. 149 (1917) (emphasis added); see also Jones v. . . .

GUERRERO- LASPRILLA, v. P. BARR, v. P., 140 S. Ct. 1062 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Catholic Social Services, Inc. , 509 U.S. 43, 64, 113 S.Ct. 2485, 125 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993) (quoting Abbott . . . Cyr. , 533 U.S. at 314, n. 38, 121 S.Ct. 2271. Congress took up this suggestion. . . . Cyr , 533 U.S. at 314, n. 38, 121 S.Ct. 2271 ). . . . See Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. . . . See, e.g. , 38 U. S. . . .

SMITH, v. FLORIDA., 140 S. Ct. 2506 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until April 13, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

LEI KE, v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY., 140 S. Ct. 2555 (U.S. 2020)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

L. ALLEN, v. A. COOPER, III,, 140 S. Ct. 994 (U.S. 2020)

. . . No. 101-960, pt. 1, p. 38 (1990)). . . .

O. JONES, Jr. v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 140 S. Ct. 1293 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 30, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

KANSAS, v. GARCIA v. v., 140 S. Ct. 791 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Meza , 38 Kan.App.2d 245, 247-250, 165 P.3d 298, 301-302 (2007). . . .

THOMAS, v. KENMARK VENTURES, LLC., 140 S. Ct. 1261 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 23, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

R. YOUNG, v. UNITED STATES,, 140 S. Ct. 1287 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

HOLGUIN- HERNANDEZ, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 762 (U.S. 2020)

. . . United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (noting the District Court's . . .

MONASKY, v. TAGLIERI, 140 S. Ct. 719 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Silberman, Interpreting the Hague Abduction Convention: In Search of a Global Jurisprudence, 38 U. . . . Id. , at 35, 38. . . . R., at 419, ¶38, 424 D. L. R. (4th), at 408, ¶38; Punter , [2007] 1 N. Z. L. R., at 88, ¶204; AR v. . . . Tr. of Oral Arg. 38. . . .

HELMS, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N. A., 140 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

E. BOYD, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,, 140 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

ADEBOWALE, v. WOLF,, 140 S. Ct. 1103 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

RUPAK, v. UNITED STATES., 140 S. Ct. 1104 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until March 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) . . .

ADAMS, v. CALHOUN COUNTY, MICHIGAN,, 140 S. Ct. 1246 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

HETTINGA, v. P. LOUMENA, 140 S. Ct. 932 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until February 11, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MORRIS, v. UNITED STATES., 140 S. Ct. 948 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MUA, v. THE O NEAL FIRM, LLP., 140 S. Ct. 817 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

DONELSON, v. HARDY,, 140 S. Ct. 860 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until February 3, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

IN RE REYNOLDS,, 140 S. Ct. 865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE WEI ZHOU,, 140 S. Ct. 865 (U.S. 2020)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

D. FORD, v. P. WHITE,, 140 S. Ct. 911 (U.S. 2020)

. . . Petitioner allowed until February 3, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

CHI, v. STOVER,, 140 S. Ct. 665 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

PETER, v. NANTKWEST, INC., 140 S. Ct. 365 (U.S. 2019)

. . . d)(1) (permitting recovery of "reasonable expenses ... plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs"); 38 . . .

C. ROTKISKE, v. KLEMM,, 140 S. Ct. 355 (U.S. 2019)

. . . United States , 247 U.S. 435, 38 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed. 1200 (1918) ; Bailey v. . . . United States , 247 U.S. 435, 38 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed. 1200 (1918), a company had unlawfully procured land . . . Id. , at 437, 438, 38 S.Ct. 571. . . . Id. , at 445, 38 S.Ct. 571. . . . Id. , at 449, 38 S.Ct. 571. . . .

K. N. v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 140 S. Ct. 642 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

FUQUEN, v. EVERITT, 140 S. Ct. 644 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

RAJAPAKSE, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION,, 140 S. Ct. 651 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

R. RUBANG, Jr. v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 140 S. Ct. 654 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 30, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

W. PAUL v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 342 (U.S. 2019)

. . . 218, 114 S.Ct. 2223, 129 L.Ed.2d 182 (1994) ; Breyer, Judicial Review of Questions of Law and Policy, 38 . . .

THOMAS, v. NEVADA, 140 S. Ct. 532 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 9, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

R. RUBANG, Jr. v. GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., 140 S. Ct. 492 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 3, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

HELM, v. HAUSER., 140 S. Ct. 493 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until December 3, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

IN RE SCHAFER,, 140 S. Ct. 480 (U.S. 2019)

. . . petitioner allowed until November 25, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

T. A. v. B. LEFF, v., 140 S. Ct. 447 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until November 12, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

BRAY, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 100 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

G. CURRY, v. LOPEZ,, 140 S. Ct. 104 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

BROWN, v. M. SAUL,, 140 S. Ct. 133 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

BARNES, v. WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD,, 140 S. Ct. 136 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

NESBITT, v. R. FRAKES,, 140 S. Ct. 180 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

BUTLER, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN, 140 S. Ct. 191 (U.S. 2019)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MCGEE, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 218 (U.S. 2019)

. . . UNITED STATES No. 19-38 Supreme Court of the United States. . . .

L. SCHEIB, v. ROZBERIL, 140 S. Ct. 286 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MOON, v. CALIFORNIA., 140 S. Ct. 288 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

O. ARMSTRONG, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA., 140 S. Ct. 292 (U.S. 2019)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

PEREZ, v. FLORIDA, 140 S. Ct. 299 (U.S. 2019)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE TWEED,, 140 S. Ct. 304 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

A. RASHID, v. UNITED STATES., 140 S. Ct. 311 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

METCALF, v. S. KALLIS,, 140 S. Ct. 318 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

BARTLETT, v. PINEDA,, 140 S. Ct. 319 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

WILLIAMS, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS., 140 S. Ct. 327 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

MUNT, v. ROY,, 140 S. Ct. 329 (U.S. 2019)

. . . further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

OCASIO, v. PEREZ,, 140 S. Ct. 330 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE B. BRASCOM,, 140 S. Ct. 331 (U.S. 2019)

. . . any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

P. GREINER, v. MACOMB COUNTY, MICHIGAN,, 140 S. Ct. 37 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

WILLIAMS, Jr. v. F. SAMUELS, 140 S. Ct. 37 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

AMERSON, v. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR DISTRICT OF COLORADO, 140 S. Ct. 39 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

SAWICKY, v. AMC NETWORKS INC., 140 S. Ct. 40 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

BAXTER, II, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 40 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

IN RE E. ZIMMERMANN,, 140 S. Ct. 42 (U.S. 2019)

. . . . petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

IN RE KILROY,, 140 S. Ct. 42 (U.S. 2019)

. . . . petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38 . . .

HARVEY, v. UNITED STATES, 140 S. Ct. 42 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .

WASHINGTON, v. M. SAUL,, 140 S. Ct. 43 (U.S. 2019)

. . . Petitioner allowed until October 28, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38( . . .