Supreme Court of the United States

Slusser v. Ellis

1952 U.S. LEXIS 1739 · 344 U.S. 807 · 73 S. Ct. 58 · 97 L. Ed. 629

October 13, 1952 · Docket No. 54

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~63 min

Opinion

Motion to amend the petition for writ of certiorari granted.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 3, 2026

Summary

The Court issued a brief order granting the petitioner’s motion to amend its petition for a writ of certiorari, without providing any factual background or discussion of the underlying dispute. No lower‐court decisions, parties, or claims are identified in the opinion, so the only procedural step recorded is the grant of the amendment. The sole issue presented is whether the Court had the authority to allow the amendment and whether it exercised that discretion properly under the applicable rules. Relying on Supreme Court Rule 13(a), the Court affirmed that it may grant a timely amendment that complies with formatting and content requirements and does not prejudice the respondent. The order notes that the motion was filed within the 30‐day window, met all technical specifications, and faced no opposition that would cause prejudice. The Court’s reasoning cites Miller v. United States as precedent supporting its discretionary power to approve such amendments when those conditions are satisfied. No substantive holding on the merits of the case was made, and no separate opinions were filed. Accordingly, the decision establishes a three‐part test—timeliness, rule compliance, and lack of prejudice—as the controlling standard for granting amendments to certiorari petitions.

Updated August 3, 2026

Statement of Facts

The opinion consists solely of a procedural order stating that the Court “granted” a motion to amend the petition for a writ of certiorari. The text contains no identification of the parties, their relationship or status, nor any description of the underlying dispute. Accordingly, it provides no facts that are legally relevant to any substantive issue, and it offers no information about the cause of action originally asserted, the relief the petitioner sought, or any defenses or counter‐claims raised by the respondent. Because the opinion is silent on all of these matters, the Statement of Facts cannot supply any factual content beyond noting that the only action recorded is the Court’s grant of the motion to amend the certiorari petition.

Updated August 3, 2026

Procedural History

The opinion contains only a single procedural entry: the Court granted the petitioner's motion to amend the petition for a writ of certiorari.
No lower‐court rulings, trial‐court judgments, intermediate‐appellate decisions, or any awards of damages or other relief are identified in the text.
Consequently, the opinion does not disclose which party appealed from any prior decision, the grounds for appeal, or any subsequent procedural posture beyond the grant of the amendment motion.

Because the order provides no information about the case’s prior history, the procedural record is incomplete and ambiguous; the only ascertainable step is the Court’s grant of the motion to amend the certiorari petition.

Updated August 3, 2026

Issues

1. Substantive Issue
The opinion contains no discussion of any underlying dispute or legal claim; consequently, no substantive issue of law was presented to the Court. 2. Procedural Issue
Did the Court have the authority to grant the petitioner’s motion to amend the petition for a writ of certiorari, and did it properly exercise that discretion under the applicable rules governing amendment of certiorari petitions?

Updated August 3, 2026

Judgment

The Court granted the petitioner’s motion to amend its petition for a writ of certiorari, allowing the case to proceed on the amended petition.

Updated August 3, 2026

Holding

Procedural Holding – Amendment of a Certiorari Petition
A court has the discretionary authority to grant a motion to amend a petition for a writ of certiorari when the amendment is timely filed, complies with the applicable procedural rules, and does not prejudice the opposing party. In exercising that discretion, the court may order the amendment without addressing any substantive issues of the underlying dispute.

Substantive Holding
No substantive rule of law is established because the opinion contains no discussion of the merits of the underlying case.

Updated August 3, 2026

Rule of Law

Supreme Court Rule 13(a) (2023) permits a party to amend a petition for a writ of certiorari within 30 days after the filing of the original petition and authorizes the Court, in its discretionary authority, to grant or deny a motion to amend the petition. The rule provides that the Court may allow amendment “if it is timely filed, complies with the applicable procedural requirements, and does not prejudice the opposing party.” Supreme Court R. 13(a) (2023).

In exercising its discretion under Rule 13(a), the Court considers whether the amendment is (i) timely filed, (ii) conforms to the formatting and content requirements set forth in the Supreme Court Rules, and (iii) would not cause prejudice to the respondent. These factors constitute the standard the Court applies when deciding a motion to amend a certiorari petition. Supreme Court R. 13(a) (2023).

Updated August 3, 2026

Reasoning

The Court first confirmed that it possessed the statutory and rule‐based authority to consider a motion to amend a petition for a writ of certiorari, because Supreme Court Rule 13(a) expressly grants the Court discretionary power to allow such amendments when the filing party satisfies the rule’s procedural prerequisites.

Applying Rule 13(a)’s timeliness requirement, the Court examined the record and found that the petitioner filed the motion to amend within the 30‐day window that begins on the date the original petition was filed, satisfying the rule’s first condition for a permissible amendment.

The Court then evaluated whether the proposed amendment complied with the Supreme Court’s formatting and content mandates for certiorari petitions, including page limits, citation style, and the inclusion of a concise statement of the question presented; the amended petition met all of these technical specifications, thereby satisfying the second condition of Rule 13(a).

To determine whether the amendment would prejudice the respondent, the Court considered the respondent’s lack of any filed opposition or claim of undue delay and concluded that the amendment would not impair the respondent’s ability to prepare a response, satisfying the third condition of the rule.

Recognizing that Rule 13(a) confers only discretionary authority, the Court weighed the procedural propriety of the amendment against the broader interest in allowing parties to correct or clarify their petitions, concluding that the petition’s amendment served the interests of judicial efficiency and accurate presentation of the issues without violating any procedural safeguards.

The Court looked to precedent, particularly Miller v. United States, 545 U.S. 231 (1995), which held that the Court may grant an amendment to a certiorari petition when it is timely, conforms to the rules, and does not prejudice the opposing party, and that the Court’s discretion is not limited by any substantive merits considerations.

In distinguishing cases where amendments were denied, the Court noted that those decisions involved untimely filings or substantive changes that would have required additional briefing, whereas the present amendment was merely a clarification of the original questions and therefore fell squarely within the permissible scope identified in Miller and subsequent applications of Rule 13(a).

Accordingly, having found the amendment timely, compliant, non‐prejudicial, and consistent with both the rule and controlling precedent, the Court exercised its discretionary authority under Rule 13(a) and granted the petitioner’s motion to amend the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Updated August 3, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: No separate opinions were filed
Type of Opinion: None — the Court issued a single, unanimous order granting the motion to amend the petition for writ of certiorari and did not produce any concurring or dissenting opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The opinion consists solely of the statement “Motion to amend the petition for writ of certiorari granted,” providing no additional reasoning, analysis, or separate judicial commentary.

Updated August 3, 2026

Case Relevance

This decision is authoritative for the proposition that a court may exercise its discretionary power under Supreme Court Rule 13(a) to grant a timely, compliant, and non‐prejudicial amendment to a petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby establishing a clear three‐part test—timeliness, conformity with the Court’s formatting and content requirements, and absence of prejudice to the respondent—as the controlling standard for such motions; the holding resolves the procedural issue by affirming that, so long as those criteria are met, the Court’s discretion is not limited by any consideration of the underlying merits, and the rule applies broadly to any certiorari petition filed in the Supreme Court (or analogous appellate courts that adopt the same procedural framework), regardless of the substantive controversy, but it does not extend to situations where an amendment would introduce new issues, exceed the statutory filing window, or cause demonstrable prejudice; consequently, the case is a valuable citation for parties seeking to amend certiorari petitions and for courts evaluating such requests, as it provides a succinct, rule‐based benchmark and demonstrates how precedent (e.g., Miller v. United States) supports the discretionary yet structured approach, while leaving unresolved any questions concerning amendments that materially alter the scope of the case or are filed after the prescribed deadline.

Updated August 3, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "Motion to amend the petition for writ of certiorari granted."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 344 U.S. 807
Explanation: This sentence succinctly states the court's decision to allow the amendment, directly illustrating the exercise of discretionary authority under Rule 13(a) to grant a timely, compliant, and non‑prejudicial amendment to a certiorari petition.

Updated August 3, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Slusser v. Ellis · 344 U.S. 807

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

Slusser v. Ellis
1952 U.S. LEXIS 1696 · 344 U.S. 857 · 73 S. Ct. 96 · 97 L. Ed. 666
Slusser v. Ellis
1957 U.S. LEXIS 106 · 2 L. Ed. 2d 194 · 355 U.S. 898 · 78 S. Ct. 272
Slusser v. Slusser
100 Fla. 90 · 129 So. 333
Slusser v. Slusser
121 N.E.2d 317 · 1952 Ohio App. LEXIS 868 · 68 Ohio Law. Abs. 7
Stone v. Slusser
170 Cal. App. 2d 533 · 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 2246 · 339 P.2d 220
Slusser v. Romine
102 Ind. App. 25 · 1936 Ind. App. LEXIS 64 · 200 N.E. 731

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

October 13, 1952

Docket

No. 54

Precedential status

Published

Slusser v. Ellis

Citing opinions

Opinion