Also known as: s.c. · SC · S Ct · Sup. Ct. · Supreme Court
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
An abbreviation placed after a court name in legal citations to designate the Supreme Court of the United States or the highest court of a state. The abbreviation signals that the cited decision comes from that final appellate body.
An abbreviation placed after a court name in legal citations to designate the Supreme Court of the United States or the highest court of a state. The abbreviation signals that the cited decision comes from that final appellate body.
3 common questions
It stands for Supreme Court and signals that the cited decision was issued by the highest court of the United States or of a state.
An abbreviation inserted between parallel citations to show that the identical case appears in both reporters. The notation prevents readers from treating the references as separate decisions.
Sylvia Santos sued in federal district court after Congress imposed a new excise tax on imported components used by her manufacturing firm. The district court upheld the tax under Article I Section 8. On appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The citation in the petition read Ninth Circuit opinion, s.c. 598 U.S. ___ (2023).
An abbreviation inserted between parallel citations to show that the identical case appears in both reporters. The notation prevents readers from treating the references as separate decisions.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
No. The abbreviation merely identifies the issuing court or confirms the citations are duplicates. It does not alter the holding or its authority.
Yes. When it follows a state intermediate court name it still means that court sits at the apex of the state judicial system.
Serena Soto offered a business record at trial that the district court excluded under Rule 402. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. When the same opinion later appeared in the Federal Appendix, the citation read 45 F.4th 112, s.c. 2023 WL 456789. The notation confirmed the opinions were identical.
Samuel Soto signed a letter confirming an oral land-sale agreement. After breach, the buyer sued. The trial court held the letter satisfied the statute. The appellate decision was later reprinted in a reporter supplement, cited as 312 P.3d 456, s.c. 2022 WL 987654, showing the reports covered the identical case.
Summit Bank challenged a federal wage statute applied to its state-chartered operations. The district court dismissed the claim. The court of appeals affirmed under the political-process rationale. Counsel cited the affirmance as 789 F.3d 234, s.c. 469 U.S. 528 (1985) to indicate the Supreme Court precedent controlled.
Sarah Sullivan sought mandamus against a federal judge in district court. The court denied relief, holding that Article III Section 1 vests judicial power only in courts Congress creates. The citation to the denial read 567 F. Supp. 3d 89, s.c. 598 U.S. ___ (2023), directing readers to the Supreme Court opinion.
Southland Foods purchased coastal lots later restricted by new environmental rules. The state court held the restrictions effected a total taking. When the opinion was reprinted in a regional reporter, the citation appeared as 312 S.E.2d 456, s.c. 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), confirming both reports covered the same decision.
In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas purchased two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina, for $975,000. He intended to construct single-family homes on the parcels, which at the time were zoned for such use and required no building permit for development. No portion of the lots qualified as a critical area under then-existing coastal zone legislation. Subsequently, in 1988, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. The legislation established a baseline and prohibited construction of occupable improvements seaward of a line drawn 20 feet landward of that baseline, directly affecting Lucas's parcels by barring any permanent habitable structures. Lucas filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas alleging that the Act's restrictions effected a taking of his property without just compensation. Following a bench trial, the court determined that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless and ordered the state to pay just compensation in the amount of $1,232,387.50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the trial court's judgment. It accepted the legislature's findings that new construction threatened public resources and concluded that a regulation designed to prevent serious public harm could not constitute a taking. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision.
View case2 common questions
It shows that the two citations refer to the identical case rather than to two different decisions.
No. Modern citation practice often omits it, but it remains a clear signal that the cited opinions are the same case.
Syllabus The Supreme Court of the United States has not power to issue a mandamus to a Secretary of State of the United States, it being an exercise of original jurisdiction not warranted by the Constitution.…