|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-352||8th Cir.||Dec 2, 2014||Mar 24, 2015||7-2||Alito||OT 2014|
Holding: So long as the other ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met, when the usages adjudicated by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are materially the same as those before a district court, issue preclusion should apply.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on March 24, 2015. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 18 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 21, 2013)|
|Oct 3 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 20, 2013.|
|Nov 20 2013||Brief of respondents Hargis Industries, Inc., dba Sealtite Building Fasteners, dba East Texas Fasteners, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Dec 5 2013||Reply of petitioner B&B Hardware, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 13 2014||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 23 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 9 2014||Supplemental brief of respondents Hargis Industries, Inc., dba Sealtite Building Fasteners, dba East Texas Fasteners, et al. filed.|
|Jun 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.|
|Jun 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 30, 2014.|
|Jul 1 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2014.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 24, 2014.|
|Aug 15 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Sep 3 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 2, 2014.|
|Sep 4 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Sep 4 2014||Brief of petitioner B&B Hardware, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Sep 11 2014||Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Oct 2 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. 1-Box|
|Oct 24 2014||Brief of respondent Hargis Industries, Inc., dba Sealtite Building Fasteners, dba East Texas Fasteners, et al. filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed.|
|Oct 31 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas filed.|
|Nov 7 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 17 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 24 2014||Reply of petitioner B&B Hardware, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 2 2014||Argued. For petitioner: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.; and John F. Bash, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.|
|Dec 4 2014||Record received from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This record is electronic.|
|Dec 10 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division. This record is SEALED. (1 Envelope)|
|Mar 24 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.|
|Apr 27 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.