Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.

Editor's Note :

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.

SCOTUS spotlight: Life at OSG – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant four new cases – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices divided in Virginia racial-gerrymandering case – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 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

Mar. 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 March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-317	5th Cir.	Mar 5, 2014 Tr.Aud.	Jun 23, 2014	9-0	Roberts	OT 2013

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in this case.

Holding: Investors can recover damages in a private securities fraud action only if they prove that they relied on the defendant's misrepresentation in deciding to buy or sell a company's stock. In Basic Inc. v. Levinson, the Supreme Court held that investors could satisfy this reliance requirement by invoking a presumption that the price of stock traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material information-including material misstatements. Halliburton has failed to provide the “special justification” necessary to overrule that presumption. However, even if plaintiffs do not need to directly prove that the misrepresentation affected the stock price to invoke the Basic presumption, defendants can defeat the presumption at the class certification stage through evidence that the misrepresentation did not in fact affect the stock price.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 23, 2014.

Opinion analysis: Son of Halliburton (Richard Booth)
A “view” from the Court: Bar admissions, but no blockbusters (Mark Walsh)
Argument recap: Justices not quite ready to jettison landmark securities decision, seeking middle ground (Ronald Mann)
Academic highlight: Rethinking securities class actions (Amanda Frost)
Argument preview: Justices to reconsider landmark securities class-action decision (Ronald Mann)
Court grants two cases (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Sep 9 2013	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2013)
Oct 11 2013	Brief of respondent Erica P. John Fund, Inc., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. in opposition filed.
Oct 11 2013	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Oct 11 2013	Brief amici curiae of Former SEC Commissioners and Officials, and Law Professors filed.
Oct 11 2013	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Oct 29 2013	Reply of petitioners Halliburton Co., et al. filed.
Oct 30 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 15, 2013.
Nov 15 2013	Petition GRANTED.
Nov 25 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Dec 19 2013	Record received from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. This record is electronic.
Dec 23 2013	The time to file the joint appendix is extended to and including January 13, 2014.
Dec 30 2013	Brief of petitioners Halliburton Co., et al. filed.
Dec 30 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, In support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.
Dec 31 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, In support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amici curiae of Former Members of Congress, et al., in support of neither party filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Vivendi, S.A. filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Amgen Inc. filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Committee on Capital Markets Regulation filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amici curiae of Former SEC Commissioners and Officials, and Law Professors filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.
Jan 6 2014	Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.
Jan 13 2014	Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes) (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 13 2014	Supplemental Joint Appendix filed.
Jan 17 2014	CIRCULATED
Jan 27 2014	Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas (1 Box).
Jan 29 2014	Brief of respondent Erica P. John Fund, Inc., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 4 2014	Brief amici curiae of Council of Institutional Investors, et al. filed. (Distributed).
Feb 5 2014	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Former SEC Chairmen William H. Donaldson and Arthur Levitt, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Securities Law Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Testifying Economists filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of AARP, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Members of Congress and Staff filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Financial Economists filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of Institutional Investors filed. (Distributed)
Feb 5 2014	Brief amici curiae of States of Oregon, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2014	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Feb 21 2014	Reply of petitioners Halliburton Co., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 5 2014	Argued. For petitioners: Aaron M. Streett, Houston, Tex. For respondent: David Boies, Armonk, N. Y.; and Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
Jun 23 2014	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined.
Jul 25 2014	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

SCOTUS spotlight: Life at OSG – SCOTUStalk

Justices grant four new cases – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices divided in Virginia racial-gerrymandering case – 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 March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- 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
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
- Garza v. Idaho The presumption of prejudice for Sixth Amendment purposes recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies regardless of whether a defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
- Jam v. International Finance Corp. The International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 affords international organizations the same immunity from suit that foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.
- Madison v. Alabama The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
- Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling.
- Yovino v. Rizo The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it counted as a member of the majority a judge who died before the court’s opinion in this case was filed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 50

Cases decided 21

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 75

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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	50
Cases decided	21
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	75

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference