Supreme Court of the United States · 1974 · Criminal Law
Criminal LawcertiorariGVRremanddenial of certiorarimultiple petitionersSolicitor General representationcriminal procedure
Facts
The opinion text identifies multiple petitioners, including George Hibma, Robert A. Noreikis, and Robert Rothrock. The Solicitor General filed a memorandum for the United States on January 30, 1974, making representations to the Court. Based on that representation, the Court addressed Hibma differently from Noreikis and Rothrock. The underlying criminal facts are not stated in the opinion text provided.
Issue
Whether certiorari should be granted and the judgment vacated and remanded as to George Hibma in light of the position presently asserted by the Government, and whether certiorari should be denied as to Robert A. Noreikis and Robert Rothrock.
Rule
When the Government represents a position warranting reconsideration, the Supreme Court may grant certiorari, vacate the judgment, and remand for reconsideration in light of that position as to a particular petitioner. The Court may simultaneously deny certiorari as to other petitioners.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Three codefendants—Evan Mercer, Luis Ortega, and Noah Pike—file a single certiorari petition after losing in the federal court of appeals in Chicago. After the petition is filed, the Solicitor General submits a memorandum stating that the Government now takes a position warranting reconsideration only as to Mercer.
What is the most appropriate Supreme Court disposition under the majority opinion's rule?
Explanation. The majority opinion allows petitioner-specific treatment. Upon the Solicitor General's representation, the Court may grant certiorari, vacate, and remand as to the petitioner affected by the Government's present position, while denying certiorari as to the others. The opinion does not require relief for all codefendants and does not decide the merits itself. (Derived from United States v. Noreikis (n.d.).)