Whether the trial and appeals courts erred in failing to review and correct their lower court's decisions

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . Wily he es REE eee, IT 5‘ CLERKS, THE TRIAL AM) APPEALS Courr? FoR Fails TD REVIEW An HERR Loweh Contr s DECISISNS PEL, Wuse 12.94, 1257 , ACCORDING TE TRipt Mie RPLLS Cou wy Come” inJT tutta LEAs, Wey Wow lan'r M+ Lats MISS GI Rene oe ae me For To Glue ORAL TES HOR, fob wlan v St tadut,200 WW> ER arly (2H, " ROBINS Compra [) SOMEWHAT DIFF CLT T VE CPRER) a \ OB\eur TO THe evr as Qeerdion jEMECALY THE | Lose PrPAG RAP. Alico, | Muse OBJECT Efghy GM oe W. pecslav Thar (VE NER RECENED pecaust HEY RAE Aumay) Sitago BY Chand Heouer jeer THE Cer Jubess , Wiy Didnt THE TEAL fro ACorak Cover GWE ME & CoPy oF THE ORIbinsiL Compute We | AED foe IT, SO | Could Ger Ksu? oie it ¢ wit wrs NO FoRma oN THE Racor) Herve 7 HELO IN Thy 0 Any oF MY CWIL Carey @ofon’ DIY SSAK, WHY awe My RALE OAT ONS PGA vor Of. Justices) iE AES ) OFILIMS bEe0) (G00. | Nor AEA) wor UES eRTEO, NDT Prosetuter? WHy WAS | pssaureD by FOF C. Jine Sime Pute de h eafhie So? 7 why wan | RePenTeD IT TP Ciner Comet) HE SED, Nag wits EVER You WANT, I WA Die FRI. 42 | Why DID Cwrettoen Awd Tenens Couniies Violate oks. 2305. 4 ) Avo be lev! £0.19 CONN wut TOT? Dart Z mone APP OW ISvas Aur INZRD TO? Zh usc LOT Atbewe LRM, Dobe Quedraon :