|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-965||9th Cir.||Oct 15, 2013||Jan 14, 2014||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2013|
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: Daimler cannot be sued in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of its Argentinian subsidiary when that conduct took place entirely outside of the United States.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on January 14, 2014. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 6 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 8, 2012)|
|Feb 27 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Mar 5 2012||Waiver of right of respondents Barbara Bauman, et al. to respond filed.|
|Mar 6 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Mar 7 2012||Brief amici curiae of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Mar 8 2012||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Mar 8 2012||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed.|
|Mar 14 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 30, 2012.|
|Mar 21 2012||Response Requested . (Due April 20, 2012)|
|Apr 10 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 21, 2012.|
|May 2 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including June 11, 2012.|
|Jun 11 2012||Brief of respondents Barbara Bauman, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 26 2012||Reply of petitioner Daimler AG filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 27 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Apr 17 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 19, 2013.|
|Apr 22 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 30 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 27, 2013.|
|Apr 30 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 19, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 30 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Jun 27 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 27 2013||Brief of petitioner Daimler AG filed.|
|Jul 2 2013||Brief amici curiae of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jul 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Lea Brilmayer filed.|
|Jul 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of New England Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of Economiesuisse, at al. filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jul 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of Viega GmbH & Co., et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jul 23 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 15, 2013.|
|Aug 9 2013||Record received from the U.S.C.A. Ninth Circuit - 1 box.|
|Aug 9 2013||Record received from U.S.D.C. California Northern District - 1 envelope.|
|Aug 13 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||Brief of respondents Barbara Bauman, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2013||Brief amici curiae of German Institute for Human Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 26 2013||Brief amicus curiae of EarthRights International filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2013||Reply of petitioner Daimler AG filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 1 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 15 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Thomas H. Dupree, Jr., Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Kevin Russell, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 14 2014||Judgment REVERSED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.|
|Feb 18 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Feb 21 2014||Records returned for U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit, and also for U.S.D.C. Northern District of California.|
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.