|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1160||11th Cir.||Nov 26, 2012||Feb 19, 2013||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2012|
Holding: Because Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy allowing hospital authorities to make acquisitions that substantially reduce competition, state-action immunity does not apply.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 19, 2013.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 24 2012||Application (11A811) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 8, 2012 to March 23, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Feb 29 2012||Application (11A811) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until March 23, 2012.|
|Mar 23 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 23, 2012)|
|Apr 10 2012||Waiver of right of respondents HCA, Inc. and Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Apr 18 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 23, 2012, for all respondents.|
|May 18 2012||Brief of respondents Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 29 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 14, 2012.|
|May 30 2012||Response Requested . (Due June 29, 2012)|
|Jun 1 2012||Letter of June 1, 2012, from counsel for respondents HCA, Inc. and Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc. received.|
|Jun 4 2012||Reply of petitioner Federal Trade Commission filed.|
|Jun 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 25 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 12 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2012.|
|Jul 12 2012||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 1, 2012.|
|Jul 25 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 20 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Aug 20 2012||Brief of petitioner Federal Trade Commission filed.|
|Aug 20 2012||Brief amici curiae of Economics Professors filed.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Joseph Stubbs, M.D.,and Dr. Corleen Thompson filed.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed.|
|Aug 27 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Federation of Independent Business filed.|
|Sep 14 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT On Monday, NOVEMBER 26, 2012.|
|Sep 14 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 27 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit. (1 envelope)|
|Oct 1 2012||Brief of respondents Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 9 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Lee Memorial Health System filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 9 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Hospital Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 9 2012||Brief amici curiae of Georgia Alliance of Community Hospitals, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 10 2012||Record received from U.S.D.C. for Middle District of Georgia. (2 boxes)|
|Oct 31 2012||Reply of petitioner Federal Trade Commission filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 26 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Benjamin J. Horwich, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 19 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Mar 25 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 18 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit.|
|Apr 18 2013||Record returned to U.S.D.C. for Middle District of Georgia.|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.