|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-339||4th Cir. _||Apr 23, 2014||Jun 9, 2014||7-2||Kennedy||OT 2013|
Holding: North Carolina’s statute of repose is not preempted by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), which instead only preempts state statutes of limitations on bringing state-law environmental tort cases.
Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 9, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito joined the opinion except as to Part II-D. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgement, in which Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Breyer joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 22 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Sep 13 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 18, 2013)|
|Oct 3 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 18, 2013.|
|Nov 14 2013||Brief of respondents Peter Waldburger, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 25 2013||Reply of petitioner CTS Corporation filed.|
|Dec 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Jan 10 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 22 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jan 23 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner CTS Corporation.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 23, 2014|
|Feb 14 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Western District of North Carolina is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Feb 18 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit. (1 - Envelope)|
|Feb 24 2014||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Feb 24 2014||Brief of petitioner CTS Corporation filed.|
|Feb 28 2014||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Chemistry Council, et al. filed.|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 26 2014||Brief of respondents Peter Waldburger, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 1 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Natural Resources Defense Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Jerry Ensminger, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief amici curiae of Environmental Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 11 2014||Reply of petitioner CTS Corporation filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 18 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 23 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Brian J. Murray, Chicago, Ill.; and Joseph R. Palmore, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: John J. Korzen, Winston-Salem, N. C.|
|Jun 9 2014||Judgment REVERSED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II-D. Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined as to all but Part II-D. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined.|
|Jul 2 2014||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Jul 17 2014||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Aug 11 2014||Rehearing DENIED.|
|Aug 11 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 11 2014||Record returned for U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
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.