|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1175||Nev.||Dec 7, 2015||Apr 19, 2016||6-2||Breyer||OT 2015|
Holding: (1) The Court is equally divided on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled and thus affirms the Nevada courts' exercise of jurisdiction over California's state agency; and (2) the Constitution does not permit Nevada to apply a rule of Nevada law that awards damages against California that are greater than it could award Nevada in similar circumstances.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on April 19, 2016. Justice Alito concurred in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 9 2015||Application (14A745) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 23, 2015 to March 23, 2015, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Jan 13 2015||Application (14A745) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until March 23, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2015)|
|Apr 9 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.|
|Apr 10 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 26, 2015.|
|Apr 21 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Multistate Tax Commission filed.|
|Apr 24 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association filed.|
|Apr 24 2015||Brief amici curiae of West Virginia, and 39 Other States filed.|
|May 26 2015||Brief of respondent Gilbert P. Hyatt in opposition filed.|
|Jun 8 2015||Reply of petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California filed.|
|Jun 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.|
|Jun 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.|
|Jun 30 2015||Petition GRANTED limited to Questions 2 and 3 presented by the petition.|
|Jul 20 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2015.|
|Jul 20 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 23, 2015.|
|Jul 21 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jul 28 2015||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 2015||Brief of petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California filed.|
|Sep 3 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Sep 10 2015||Brief amici curiae of Council of State Governments, et al. filed.|
|Sep 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of South Carolina State Ports Authority filed.|
|Sep 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Multistate Tax Commission filed.|
|Sep 10 2015||Brief amici curiae of West Virginia and 43 Other States filed.|
|Oct 9 2015||SET FOR ARGUMNET on Monday, December 7, 2015|
|Oct 19 2015||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Nevada.|
|Oct 23 2015||Brief of respondent Gilbert P. Hyatt filed.|
|Oct 27 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 30 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Federal Jurisdiction filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 5 2015||Record received from the Supreme Court of Nevada is electronic and located on the Supreme Court of Nevada website. One box from the Supreme Court of Nevada was also received containing hard copies and CD's of the appendices.|
|Nov 23 2015||Reply of petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 7 2015||Argued. For petitioner: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: H. Bartow Farr, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 19 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., concurred in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|May 23 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
|May 23 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 18 2016||Record from The Supreme Court of Nevada has been returned.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.