|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-684||8th Cir.||Nov 4, 2014||Jan 13, 2015||9-0||Scalia||OT 2014|
Holding: A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Truth in Lending Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the three-year period; the statute does not require him to file suit within that period.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on January 13, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 6 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 6, 2014)|
|Jan 2 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 12, 2014.|
|Jan 23 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 14, 2014.|
|Mar 14 2014||Response to petition from respondents Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Apr 2 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 2 2014||Reply of petitioner Larry D. Jesinoski, and Cheryle Jesinoski filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.|
|Apr 28 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|May 15 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2014.|
|May 16 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 16, 2014.|
|Jul 15 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 15 2014||Brief of petitioners Larry D. Jesinoski, et ux. filed.|
|Jul 15 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jul 15 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Jul 22 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jul 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of AARP, et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2014||Brief amici curiae of States of New York, et al. filed.|
|Aug 21 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Sep 15 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. 1-Box.|
|Sep 16 2014||Brief of respondents Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 17 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Bankers Association, et al. filed.|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 23 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Richard R.W. Brooks filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 23 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Structured Finance Industry Group, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 14 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Reply of petitioners Larry D. Jesinoski, et ux. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2014||Argued. For petitioners: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.; and Elaine J. Goldenberg, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 13 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Feb 18 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Feb 20 2015||Record returned to U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. 1 Box.|
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.