Rosillo v. Holten
Petition for certiorari denied on October 11, 2016
Issue: (1) Whether a federal court of appeals may exercise jurisdiction when a notice of appeal does not identify correctly the order to be reviewed, but the briefs resolve any potential confusion; (2) whether a federal court of appeals may exercise jurisdiction when an error in the designation of the order to be reviewed neither prejudices nor misleads the appellee; and (3) whether the more lenient standard of Foman v. Davis or the more stringent standard of Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. determines if appellate jurisdiction is defeated by an error in the designation of the order to be reviewed.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Petition of the day (Kate Howard, August 13, 2016)
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
06/21/2016 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 22, 2016) |
06/30/2016 | Waiver of right of respondent Matt Holten to respond filed. |
07/19/2016 | Letter of July 11, 2016, from counsel for petitioner with notification pursuant to Rule 12.6 received. |
07/20/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016. |
07/22/2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed) |
07/29/2016 | Response Requested . (Due August 29, 2016) |
08/29/2016 | Brief of respondents Matt Holten and Jeff Ellis in opposition filed. |
09/13/2016 | Reply of petitioner Alfredo Rosillo filed. |
09/14/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016. |
10/11/2016 | Petition DENIED. |