Adams v. Robertson, 520 U.S. 83, 10 (1997) (per curiam)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

92

ADAMS v. ROBERTSON

Per Curiam

the failure of counsel to comply with Rule 15.2 that overrides the interest of comity or the value to this Court of a fully developed factual and legal record upon which to base decisions.6

Accordingly, we dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

It is so ordered.

certiorari." The obligations under Rules 14.1 and 15.2 are complementary, but independent of each other.

6 We note, of course, that we dismissed a writ of certiorari regarding a similar question three Terms ago in Ticor Title Ins. Co. v. Brown, 511 U. S. 117 (1994) (per curiam). Our continuing interest in an issue, however, does not affect the application of our Rules, because we recognize that by "adher[ing] scrupulously to the customary limitations on our discretion" regardless of the significance of the underlying issue, "we 'promote respect . . . for the Court's adjudicatory process.' " Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 224 (1983) (quoting Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 677 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting)).

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10

Last modified: October 4, 2007