Gunn v. Minton

Editor's Note :

Gunn v. Minton

Monday at the Supreme Court: Four opinions and a GVR – SCOTUStalk

Opinion analysis: Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate – Emily Hammond

Justices send cake sequel back to state court – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 17, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 13, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-1118	Tex S. Ct.	Jan 16, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Feb 20, 2013	9-0	Roberts	OT 2012

Holding: 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over an case “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” does not deprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in a patent case.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on February 20, 2013.

Opinion recap: Justices decline to make a federal case out of patent malpractice claims. (Ronald Mann)
Argument recap: Making patent law on the plains of Texas? (Ronald Mann)
Argument preview: Making a federal case out of legal malpractice claims (Ronald Mann)
Is the new economy driving the Court’s docket? (Ronald Mann)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 9 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 12, 2012)
Mar 23 2012	Waiver of right of respondent Vernon F. Minton to respond filed.
Mar 30 2012	Supplemental brief of petitioners Jerry W. Gunn, et al. filed.
Apr 4 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 20, 2012.
Apr 12 2012	Response Requested . (Due May 12, 2012)
May 9 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 13, 2012.
Jun 13 2012	Brief of respondent Vernon F. Minton in opposition filed.
Jun 21 2012	Reply of petitioners Jerry W. Gunn, et al. filed.
Jun 27 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Sep 12 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012.
Sep 13 2012	Supplemental brief of respondent Vernon F. Minton filed. (Distributed)
Oct 5 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Oct 31 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, January 16, 2013.
Nov 19 2012	Joint appendix filed (1 volume and 1 supplemental volume). (Statement of costs filed)
Nov 19 2012	Brief of petitioners Jerry W. Gunn, et al. filed.
Nov 26 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Ronald E. Mallen filed.
Nov 26 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Nov 26 2012	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 27 2012	CIRCULATED
Dec 14 2012	Record received from Supreme Court of Texas is electronic.
Dec 19 2012	Brief of respondent Vernon F. Minton filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP filed. (Distributed)
Dec 26 2012	Brief amici curiae of Los Alamos National Security, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 26 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago filed. (Distributed)
Jan 7 2013	Reply of petitioners Jerry W. Gunn, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 16 2013	Argued. For petitioners: Jane Webre, Austin, Tex. For respondent: Thomas M. Michel, Fort Worth, Tex.
Feb 20 2013	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Mar 25 2013	MANDATE ISSUED.
Apr 25 2013	Record Returned - 1 CD, 1 DVD and 1 Envelope

Featured Posts

Monday at the Supreme Court: Four opinions and a GVR – SCOTUStalk

Opinion analysis: Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate – Emily Hammond

Justices send cake sequel back to state court – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the June 13 conference on Monday; the justices granted, vacated and remanded Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Gamble v. United States and Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill.
On Thursday, we expect the Supreme Court to release opinions in one or more argued cases. The justices will meet for their June 20 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Gamble v. United States The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
- Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck Manhattan Community Access Corp., a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
- Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill The House of Delegates lacks standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan.
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s judgment that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia’s prohibition on uranium mining in the commonwealth is affirmed.
- Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Quarles v. United States Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
- Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Banister v. Davis (1) Whether Gonzalez v. Crosby extends to post-judgment motions filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); (2) whether, if Gonzalez does apply, a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion should toll the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv); and (3) whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has be recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 49

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 17, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	49
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions