Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Joseph JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES., 2018 — 139 S. Ct. 92 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Joseph JOHNSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
139 S. Ct. 92202 L. Ed. 2d 3·Supreme Court of the United States·2018
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Joseph JOHNSON, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 17-8910.
Supreme Court of the United States
Oct. 1, 2018.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because the Court lacks a quorum, 28 U.S.C. § 1, and since the only qualified Justice is of the opinion that the case cannot be heard and determined at the next Term of the Court, the judgment is affirmed under 28 U.S.C. § 2109, which provides that under these circumstances "the court shall enter its order affirming the judgment of the court from which the case was brought for review with the same effect as upon affirmance by an equally divided court."
THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Justice THOMAS, Justice GINSBURG, Justice BREYER, Justice ALITO, Justice SOTOMAYOR, and Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.