Wyrick v. Fields

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

There is much force to what Justice Marshall has written in dissent. I share his concern about the Court’s practice of deciding cases summarily, partly because there is a special risk of error in summary dispositions and partly because the practice represents an unwise use of the Court’s scarce resources. I do not, however, agree with Justice Marshall’s suggestion that we should invite the parties to submit briefs on the merits before a case is summarily decided. I fear that the institution of such a practice would tend to regularize and expand the number of our summary dispositions.

*50In this case I believe the correct procedure for the Court to have followed would have been simply to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari. No conflict has yet developed on the precise question presented and, as Justice Marshall demonstrates, the Court of Appeals’ conclusion is not without reasoned support. The Court, however, has granted the petition. Although I voted against that action, I am now persuaded that the Court’s resolution of the merits is correct and therefore join its disposition.