|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-929||5th Cir.||Oct 9, 2013||Dec 3, 2013||9-0||Alito||OT 2013|
Holding: A forum-selection clause may be enforced by a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on December 3, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 25 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2013)|
|Feb 25 2013||Brief of respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 25 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Feb 25 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Texas Civil Justice League filed.|
|Mar 7 2013||Reply of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 13 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 29, 2013.|
|Apr 1 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 17, 2013.|
|Apr 22 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2013.|
|May 16 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.|
|May 21 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the resondent.|
|Jun 17 2013||Brief of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 17 2013||Joint appendix filed. ( Statement of costs received.)|
|Jun 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Jun 24 2013||Brief amici curiae of New England Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jun 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Stephen E. Sachs in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 23 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 9, 2013.|
|Aug 2 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. fo 5th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Aug 2 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Western District of Texas is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Aug 16 2013||Brief of respondent J-Crew Management, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 23 2013||Motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs in support of neither party for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Subcontractors Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2013||Petitioner's response in opposition to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs.|
|Aug 30 2013||Respondents' opposition in response to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sach.|
|Sep 11 2013||Respondents' amended opposition to motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs|
|Sep 16 2013||Reply of petitioner Atlantic Marine Construction Company, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 1 2013||Motion of Professor Stephen E. Sachs for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument DENIED. The parties, however, should be prepared to address at oral argument the arguments raised in the brief of Professor Stephen E. Sachs as amicus curiae in support of neither party.|
|Oct 9 2013||Argued. For petitioner: William S. Hastings, Dallas, Tex. For respondents: William R. Allensworth, Austin, Tex.|
|Dec 3 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 6 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.