Docket no.
09-8854 refers to a Supreme Court case, DEMARCUS ALI SEARS v STEPHEN UPTON WARDEN, decided on June 29, 2010.
Also worth reading: How is AI legal education reform expected to evolve by 2027, and what does this mean for eDiscovery and document drafting? · What does the AI bar exam analytics 2027 reveal about legal education and practice? · What are the most effective bar exam recovery strategies for 2026?
The case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Demarcus Ali Sears, who was seeking review of a decision by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
In the dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the Court should have granted the petition and addressed the merits of Sears' claims.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case provides insight into how the Court selects which cases to hear and review, as the vote was 8-1 to deny the petition.
Docket numbers are unique identifiers assigned to each case filed with the Supreme Court, allowing the Court to keep track of the large volume of petitions received each year.
The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for writs of certiorari each term, but only agrees to hear a small fraction of the cases docketed.
Reviewing the docket entries for a Supreme Court case can reveal details about the timeline of the proceedings, such as when oral arguments were held and when the final decision was issued.
The Supreme Court's decision to deny a petition for certiorari does not necessarily mean the Justices agreed with the lower court's ruling, but rather that they did not find the case worthy of further review.
Researchers and legal scholars often analyze the Supreme Court's cert decisions to better understand the Court's priorities and decision-making processes.
The dissenting opinion in Docket no.
09-8854 highlights the nuances and disagreements that can arise within the Court, even in cases where the majority declines to hear the appeal.
Understanding the significance of a Supreme Court docket number requires contextual knowledge about the Court's procedures and the specific case history.
The public availability of Supreme Court dockets and decisions through resources like the Legal Information Institute (LII) allows for greater transparency and scholarly analysis of the Court's work.