|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-369||Minn.||Oct 7, 2020||Mar 25, 2021||8-0||Kagan||OT 2020|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.
Holding: The connection between plaintiffs’ product-liability claims arising from car accidents occurring in each plaintiff’s state of residence and Ford’s activities in those states is sufficient to support specific jurisdiction in the respective state courts, even though the automobiles involved in the accidents were manufactured and sold elsewhere.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 25, 2021. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 18 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 21, 2019)|
|Sep 26 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Ford Motor Company.|
|Oct 17 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2019 to November 20, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 17 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 20, 2019.|
|Oct 21 2019||Brief amici curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Oct 21 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 20 2019||Brief of respondent Adam Bandemer in opposition filed.|
|Dec 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Dec 04 2019||Reply of petitioner Ford Motor Company filed.|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 17 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-368 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jan 17 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-368. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-368. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Feb 21 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 27, 2020. VIDED.|
|Feb 26 2020||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Minnesota.|
|Feb 26 2020||The record received from the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the record has been electronically filed.|
|Mar 06 2020||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice Of The Defense Bar filed. VIDED.|
|Mar 09 2020||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Todd County District Court of Minnesota. (1-Box)|
|Mar 19 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Apr 03 2020||ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED. VIDED.|
|Apr 13 2020||Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020. VIDED.|
|Jul 13 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 7, 2020. VIDED.|
|Oct 07 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Sean Marotta, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Deepak Gupta, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Mar 25 2021||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Barrett, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. VIDED.|
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.