PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc.

Pending petition
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-1705 4th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Issues: (1) Whether the Hobbs Act strips courts of jurisdiction to engage in a traditional Chevron analysis and requires automatic deference to an agency’s order even if there has been no challenge to the “validity” of such order; and (2) whether faxes that “promote goods and services even at no cost” must have a commercial nexus to a firm’s business to qualify as an “advertisement” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which permitted civil liability for sending “unsolicited advertisements” by fax; or whether a plain reading of the rules set forth by the Federal Communications Commission creates a per se rule that such faxes are automatically “advertisements.”

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jun 21 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 26, 2018)
Jul 11 2018Waiver of right of respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. to respond filed.
Jul 18 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
Aug 01 2018Response Requested. (Due August 31, 2018)
Aug 29 2018Brief of respondent Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. in opposition filed.
Sep 11 2018Reply of petitioners PDR Network, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Sep 12 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
Oct 09 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards