Supreme Court of the United States, 1978

County of Sonoma v. Isbell

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 27, 1978 · Brennan, Stevens, Stewart, Whom

439 U.S. 996; 99 S. Ct. 597 (United States Reports)

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Devine (S.D. 1985)
Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Taylor v. State (Ind. 1995)
Underwood Farmers Elevator v. Leidholm (N.D. 1990)
County of El Dorado v. Schneider (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)
Martin Watters v. Ronald Hubbard (6th Cir. 1984)
United States v. Billy G. Byers (D.C. Cir. 1984)
County of Alameda v. Mosier (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)
Donald Lee Noggle v. Ronald C. Marshall, Supt. (6th Cir. 1983)
Sumner v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (Cal. 1983)
Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway Company v. United Transportation Union And Its Affiliated Local No. 1121 (8th Cir. 1980)
Ashley, Drew & Northern Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union (8th Cir. 1980)
Ting v. AT & T (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2002)
State v. Galbreath (Wash. Ct. App. 2002)
United States v. Edelin (District Court, District of Columbia 2001)
United States v. Beckford (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1997)
Commonwealth v. Morley (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)
California Labor Federation v. Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)
Gerald R. Hooper v. D.A. Garraghty, Warden Attorney General of the State of Virginia (4th Cir. 1988)
State v. Craney (Iowa 1984)
Gifford v. Casper Neon Sign Co., Inc. (Wyo. 1982)
White v. United States (D.C. 1982)
United States v. Robert E. Jones (10th Cir. 1981)
United States v. Hinckley (District Court, District of Columbia 1981)
County of Ventura v. Castro (Supreme Court of the United States 1980)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied for failure to file petition within time provided by 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c).

Mr. Justice Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart join.

When a petition for certiorari is jurisdictionally untimely, should the Court so indicate in its order denying the writ? I think not, for these reasons: First, since a denial of certio-rari has no precedential value in any event, the notation serves no useful purpose. Second, since the question of timeliness is not always easy to answer, compare Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, with Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. King County, 264 U. S. 22, and may produce different answers from different Members of the Court, even the decision to include that brief notation may consume valuable time. Third, because there is no consistency in the Court’s practice with regard to such notations, their spasmodic use may engender confusion and misunderstanding. Accordingly, I do not join in the Court’s statement.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.