28 U.S.C. § 2103
Repealed. Pub. L. 100–352, § 5(c), June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 663]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 78
cases, 1949–2015 · leading case: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985)
“[12] Treating the jurisdictional *471 statement as a petition for a writ of certiorari, see 28 U. S. C. § 2103 , we grant the petition and now reverse.”
Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n (1983)
“28 U. S. C. § 2103 ; Palmore v. United States, 411 U.”
City of El Paso v. Simmons (1965)
“[5] That section now provides that an appeal improvidently taken from a court of appeals as well as from a state court shall not be dismissed for that reason alone, but that the appeal papers shall be regarded and acted on as a petition for a writ of certiorari.”
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
“We conclude that jurisdiction by appeal does not lie; [4] however, treating the filed *563 papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2103 , we grant the petition.”
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)
“We need not resolve whether this appeal is proper under § 1254(2), however, because in any event we have certiorari jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 2103 . As we have previously done in equivalent situations, see El Paso v.”
Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco (1978)
“The opinion below does not purport to determine the constitutionality of the California jurisdictional statute. Rather, the question decided was whether the Constitution itself would permit the assertion of jurisdiction.”
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989)
“We therefore dismiss the appeal, treat the papers as a petition for writ of certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103 , and grant the petition.”
Frisby v. Schultz (1988)
“Because the question presented is of substantial importance, and because further proceedings below would not likely aid our consideration of it, we choose to avoid the finality issue simply by granting certiorari. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal and, treating the…”
Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (1984)
“Accordingly, treating the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari, as we are authorized to do, 28 U. S. C. § 2103 , we grant the petition and reach the merits of the Court of Appeals' ruling.”
Maine v. Taylor (1986)
“§ 1254 (2), we would still have discretion under 28 U. S. C. § 2103 to grant review by writ of certiorari.”
Hanson v. Denckla (1958)
“Treating the papers whereon appeal was taken as a petition for certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103 , certiorari is granted.”
Calder v. Jones (1984)
“7 Treating the jurisdictional statement as *788 a petition for writ of certiorari, as we are authorized to do, 28 U. S. C. §2103 , we hereby grant the petition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.