Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          participating nontest case petitioner clients and numerous other            
          nontest case petitioners labeled “intervenors”.  Because the                
          Court had not entered decisions in any of the nontest cases                 
          (pending final disposition of the test cases), the Court rejected           
          the notices of appeal filed on behalf of nontest case                       
          petitioners.  However, in response to a motion filed by Attorney            
          Sticht, see supra note 4, the Court certified for interlocutory             
          appeal certain orders it had issued in the participating nontest            
          case petitioners’ cases in connection with the evidentiary                  
          hearing, thereby enabling those petitioners to apply to the Court           
          of Appeals for immediate review.  See sec. 7482(a)(2)(A).                   
               On the basis of this Court’s certification order, Izen and             
          Jones (as well as Sticht) continued their efforts on behalf of              
          nontest case petitioners in the Court of Appeals.  Izen submitted           
          to that court a “Notice of Appeal of Certain Intervenors” bearing           
          docket No. 00-70858 (the docket number the Court of Appeals had             
          assigned to the test case appeal).  Izen purported to submit that           
          document on behalf of not only the Adairs, but also nontest case            
          petitioners in more than 450 docketed cases who had not                     
          participated in the evidentiary hearing and whose cases therefore           
          were not included in the certification order.  Jones submitted              
          “notices of appeal” on behalf of the four Jones petitioners,                
          which the Court of Appeals construed as petitions for permission            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011