|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-864||3d Cir.||Nov 5, 2012||Mar 27, 2013||5-4||Scalia||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.
Holding: The class action brought by respondents, subscribers to the cable television services provided by petitioner, was improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires a court to find that the “questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members,” because the Third Circuit erred in refusing to decide whether the class’s proposed damages model could show damages on a classwide basis. Under proper standards, the model was inadequate, and the class should not have been certified.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 27, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 30 2011||Application (11A534) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2011 to January 18, 2012, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|Dec 2 2011||Application (11A534) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 18, 2012.|
|Jan 11 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 13, 2012)|
|Feb 13 2012||Waiver of right of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. to respond filed.|
|Feb 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 16, 2012.|
|Mar 8 2012||Response Requested . (Due April 9, 2012)|
|Apr 9 2012||Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Apr 24 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 10, 2012.|
|Apr 24 2012||Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|May 14 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 17, 2012.|
|May 21 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 24, 2012.|
|May 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012.|
|Jun 4 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 7, 2012.|
|Jun 11 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012.|
|Jun 18 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2012||Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: "Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.".|
|Jul 20 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 17, 2012.|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, November 5, 2012|
|Aug 6 2012||Letter from counsel for the respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Aug 7 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Aug 9 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit. (1 box). There are sealed documents in this record.|
|Aug 14 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Aug 17 2012||Joint appendix filed (5 Volumes, 2 with motion to seal). (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 17 2012||Brief of petitioner Comcast Corporation, et al. filed.|
|Aug 17 2012||Motion to file Volumes Four and Five of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al.|
|Aug 22 2012||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 22 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 25, 2012.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Intel Corporation filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amici curiae of Economists in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 4 2012||Record received from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (3 boxes)|
|Sep 19 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 25 2012||Brief of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 26 2012||Letter of respondents Caroline Behrend, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 1 2012||Motion for leave to file Volumes 4 and 5 of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.|
|Oct 2 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Association for Justice, Public Justice, P.C., and AARP filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2012||Reply of petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2012||Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal filed by petitioners Comcast Corporation, et al. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2012||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 2, 2012.|
|Nov 2 2012||Motion for leave to file a supplemental volume of the joint appendix under seal GRANTED.|
|Nov 5 2012||Argued. For petitioners: Miguel A. Estrada, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Barry Barnett, Dallas, Tex.|
|Mar 27 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Apr 29 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jun 3 2013||Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Pennsylvania.|
|Jun 4 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for Third Circuit.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...