|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-565||2d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: Whether vertical conduct by a disruptive market entrant, aimed at securing suppliers for a new retail platform, should be condemned as per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, rather than analyzed under the rule of reason, because such vertical activity also had the alleged effect of facilitating horizontal collusion among the suppliers.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 16 2015||Application (15A301) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 28, 2015 to October 28, 2015, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Sep 17 2015||Application (15A301) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until October 28, 2015.|
|Oct 28 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2015)|
|Nov 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 4, 2016, for all respondents.|
|Nov 17 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for all respondents, except for the United States.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of BSA I The Software Alliance filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Economists filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Act I The App Association filed.|
|Dec 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of International Center for Law & Economics, and Scholars of Law and Economics filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Jan 4 2016||Brief of respondents Texas, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jan 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Apple, Inc. filed.|
|Jan 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 24 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Feb 29 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.|
|Mar 7 2016||Petition DENIED.|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.