Final answer:
Subsequent history as to a denial of certiorari is needed when conflicts among courts or constitutional questions arise that may lead to future Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court often grants certiorari to resolve these legal uncertainties if four justices agree to hear the case. Subsequent history provides detailed reasons for the denial when certiorari is not granted.
Step-by-step explanation:
Subsequent history as to a denial of certiorari is necessary when addressing conflicts or legal uncertainties that may influence the Supreme Court to reconsider the matter at some point. Often, a writ of certiorari, commonly referred to as cert., is requested for the Supreme Court to review a lower court's record. The Court is inclined to grant certiorari to resolve conflicts such as: (1) differing decisions among various circuit courts, (2) an appeals court decision that goes against established precedent, and (3) discrepancies between state court and federal court decisions. Additionally, if there is a constitutional question or varying interpretations of a law, the Supreme Court is more likely to accept the case. However, this only occurs if at least four justices, under the Rule of Four, vote to grant the writ. Without the grant of certiorari, the lower court's decision stands, and these cases require subsequent history to detail the reasons for denial.