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.
Illinois v. Gray, 1978 — 435 U.S. 1013 · caselaw · US
General
Illinois v. Gray
435 U.S. 1013·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
Mr. Justice Stevens.
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
No. 77-943.
Illinois v. Gray.
[MAJORITY]
Sup. Ct. Ill. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied, it appearing that the judgment below rests on an adequate state ground. Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall would deny petition without explanation.
Mr. Justice Stevens.
The Court’s occasional practice of explaining its denials of certiorari, see, e. g., Michigan v. Allensworth, ante, p. 933; Illinois v. Pendleton, ante, p. 956; Illinois v. Garlick, 434 U. S. 988 (1977), is, I believe, inconsistent with the rule that such denials have no precedential value. Since I regard that rule as an important aspect of our practice, I do not join the Court’s explanation in this case.