|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-283||3d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issues: (1) Whether this court should resolve the split in the circuit courts of appeals regarding whether, how, and under what circumstances Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals must be satisfied for a class to be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 when challenged expert testimony is at issue, particularly in light of this court leaving issues open in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo; (2) whether this court's rulings in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend require the district court, before approving the National Football League head trauma settlement under FRCP 23, to have assessed the disputed scientific propositions justifying the settlement under the Daubert standard, given the existence of (a) material disputes about the credibility of those scientific propositions, (b) unrequited requests for adversarial discovery and evidentiary hearings, as well as the fact that (c) the “individual stakes are high and disparities among class members great,” Amchem; and (3) whether it is fundamentally wrong and an abdication of fiduciary duties to absent class members under FRCP 23 for the lower courts to have approved the NFL's head trauma class action settlement where there was no adversarial discovery on, and no definitive assessments about, the disputed “scientific” propositions regarding head trauma that were the basis for vastly disparate relief to class members along with a comprehensive release of claims.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 30 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 3, 2016)|
|Sep 13 2016||Waiver of right of respondent Curtis Anderson, Objector - Appellant to respond filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 2, 2016, for all respondents.|
|Sep 26 2016||Waiver of right of respondents Jimmie H. Jones, et al. to respond filed.|
|Sep 29 2016||Brief of Miller respondents in support filed.|
|Oct 27 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 7, 2016, for all respondents.|
|Nov 2 2016||Waiver of right of respondents National Football League, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 4 2016||Brief of respondents Kevin Turner, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 4 2016||Brief of respondents The National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 16 2016||Reply of petitioner Scott Gilchrist, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Carlton Chester "Cookie" Gilchrist filed.|
|Nov 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.|
|Nov 22 2016||Supplemental brief of respondents Kevin Turner, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 12 2016||Petition DENIED.|
🚨 LIVE NOW 🚨 5PM on IGTV #SimplePolitics join me & @AHoweBlogger editor / reporter for the @SCOTUSblog for a great conversation on the recent decisions by the Supreme Court. There is so much to talk about.
SimplePolitics with Kim Wehle - Special Guest Bill Kristol, Editor-At-Large, The Bulwark
Tonight on #SimplePolitics, Bill Kristol and I have an in-depth conversation about Impeachment, what‘s next for ...
ICYMI: We got Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s first majority opinion today.
SCOTUS rules against immigrant who has lived in the US without authorization for decades. The gov't sought to deport him based on a state misdemeanor conviction (he used a fake Social Security card to get a job). SCOTUS says 5-3 he's not eligible to seek protection from removal.
NEW: In Freedom of Information Act case, SCOTUS says federal government does not have to disclose documents that were produced as part of a rulemaking on "cooling water intake structures" under the Clean Water Act. The Sierra Club argued the docs should be disclosed under FOIA.
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the Supreme Court will hand down one or more opinions in argued cases.
We’ll be live blogging through it at 9:45 with @AHoweBlogger, Mark Walsh, and @jamesromoser.
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, March 4 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, March 4, as the court releases opinions from the 2020-21 term. This live ...
SCOTUS will hear oral argument at 10:00 a.m. EST about when claimants must raise claims in the administrative process – “exhausting” their administrative remedies. Read more from Ronald Mann.
It might sound exhausting! But we claim it might be fun.
Justices to weigh issue exhaustion for Social Security claimants - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Carr v. Saul involves a surprisingly basic question of administrative law: when claimants ...
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.