|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1178||2d Cir.||TBD||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2014|
Disclosure: As of July 25, 2014, Goldstein & Russell, PC represents the petitioner in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether a court can constitutionally take copyrights to works originally owned and authored by an independent contractor and hand them to a private party by judicially re-designating them “works for hire;” (2) whether “employer” under the Copyright Act of 1909 can be judicially extended beyond conventional employment to independent contractors, when this contradicts its common law meaning, binding Supreme Court precedent and longstanding canons of statutory construction; and (3) whether “work for hire” can be determined based on post-creation contingencies, like discretionary payment, when authorship and ownership of a copyrightable work, including “work for hire,” vests at inception.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 11 2013||Application (13A608) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 20, 2014 to March 21, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Dec 13 2013||Application (13A608) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until March 21, 2014.|
|Mar 21 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 28, 2014)|
|Apr 24 2014||Waiver of right of respondents Marvel Characters, Incorporated, et al. to respond filed.|
|Apr 29 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.|
|May 14 2014||Response Requested . (Due June 13, 2014)|
|May 28 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 14, 2014.|
|Jun 13 2014||Brief amici curiae of Bruce Lehman, et al. filed.|
|Jun 13 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The California Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed.|
|Jun 13 2014||Brief amici curiae of Mark Evanier, John Morrow, and Pen Center USA filed.|
|Jun 13 2014||Brief amici curiae of Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, et al. filed.|
|Jul 14 2014||Brief of respondents Marvel Characters, Incorporated, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jul 29 2014||Reply of petitioners Lisa R. Kirby, et al. filed.|
|Jul 30 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Sep 26 2014||Stipulation to dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 46 received.|
|Sep 26 2014||Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.