Yesterday, in Linda Greenhouse's NY Times article entitled "Roberts Is at Court's Helm, but He Isn't Yet in Control" she notes that:
"The term's closing weeks were particularly ragged. The court issued no decision in a major patent case that had drawn intense interest from the business community, announcing two months after the argument, over the dissents of three justices, that the case had been 'improvidently granted' — they should not have agreed to decide it — in the first place."
And also yesterday, unearthed from my pile of office mail, I found the following reprint: Michael E. Solimine & Rafael Gely, The Supreme Court and the DIG: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis, 2005 Wis. L. Rev. 1421 (also available on ssrn). The article examines how often and in what types of cases DIGs are issued, as well as address the instutitutional and jurisprudential issues raised by its use. For example, they conclude that "[t]he DIG was more likely to be used in constitutional cases, as compared to other cases, perhaps allowing the Court to avoid more difficult cases until future occasions."