|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1150||3d Cir.||Jan 16, 2018||Mar 27, 2018||9-0||Roberts||OT 2017|
Holding: When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on March 27, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 17 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2017)|
|Apr 20 2017||Waiver of right of respondents Samuel Hall, Jr. and Hall & Griffith, P.C. to respond filed.|
|May 09 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.|
|May 15 2017||Response Requested. (Due June 14, 2017)|
|Jun 14 2017||Brief of respondents Samuel Hall, Jr. and Hall & Griffith, P.C. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 28 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.|
|Jul 11 2017||Reply of petitioner Elsa Hall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ethlyn Louise Hall and as Successor Trustee of the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 28 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 13 2017||Brief of petitioner Elsa Hall filed.|
|Nov 13 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018|
|Nov 22 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 13 2017||Brief of respondents Samuel Hall, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 18 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.|
|Dec 19 2017||Brief amici curiae of Retired United States District Judges filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2017||The record from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit is electronic.|
|Jan 08 2018||Reply of petitioner Elsa Hall filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Andrew C. Simpson, Christiansted, V. I. For respondents: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 27 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Apr 30 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS agrees to take up two new cases. Here's the orders list. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
#SCOTUS grants US v. Vaello-Madero, a challenge to exclusion of Puerto Rico residents from eligibility for Supplemental Social Security Income program, which provides benefits to poor disabled adults & children
Good morning. It’s Monday, and it’s March!
At 9:30 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will release orders from Friday’s conference.
At 10:00, the court will consider an appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges. More from George Quillin & Jeanne Gills.
Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges - SCOTUSblog
The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s Unite...
BREAKING: SCOTUS orders California’s Santa Clara County to allow churches to hold indoor services. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent. Here’s the short shadow docket order.
#SCOTUS grants emergency request from northern California churches to allow indoor worship services pending appeal, says result is "clearly dictated" by recent decision. Kagan dissents, joined by Breyer & Sotomayor: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022621zr_1bo2.pdf
Just in: SCOTUS opinions expected next Thursday.
#SCOTUS website indicates that the Court will release orders from today's conference on Monday morning, March 1, at 9:30 am, with opinions again on Thursday, March 4, at 10 am. Justices will also hear oral arguments next week, including in Arizona voting dispute on Tuesday.
Apparently all the action today at #SCOTUS was not limited to opinion announcements at 10 am. Major new cert. petition filed today challenging Harvard admissions policy. https://twitter.com/GregStohr/status/1364962610177843210
NEW: Supreme Court asked to outlaw race-based college admissions. Group challenging Harvard admissions policy says it files appeal asking court to over 2003 Grutter decision.
SCOTUS rules against a college student who tried to sue police officers after they mistook him for a criminal suspect and tackled/beat him. The unanimous ruling involves a technical interpretation of the "judgment bar" under the Federal Tort Claims Act. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-546_7mip.pdf
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.