|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1447||Fla S. Ct.||Jan 15, 2013||Jun 25, 2013||5-4||Alito||OT 2012|
Holding: The government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the Nollan /Dolan requirements even when it denies the permit.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 25, 2013. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 20 2012||Application (11A909) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 3, 2012 to June 1, 2012, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Mar 30 2012||Application (11A909) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until June 1, 2012.|
|May 30 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 2, 2012)|
|Jun 22 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 1, 2012.|
|Aug 1 2012||Brief of respondent St. Johns River Water Management District in opposition filed.|
|Aug 14 2012||Reply of petitioner Coy A. Koontz, Jr. filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 15 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Oct 1 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 15, 2013.|
|Nov 6 2012||Conditional consent to the fiing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 8 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 21, 2012.|
|Nov 8 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 21, 2012.|
|Nov 13 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neitiher party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 21 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 21 2012||Joint appendix (exhibits volume) filed.|
|Nov 21 2012||Brief of petitioner Coy A. Koontz, Jr. filed.|
|Nov 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Association of Florida Community Developers, et al. filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Hillcrest Property, LLP filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rigihts Union filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Land Use Institute, Ltd. filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Home Builders, et al. filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, et al. filed.|
|Nov 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Owners' Counsel of America filed.|
|Dec 6 2012||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 21 2012||Brief of respondent St. Johns River Water Management District filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2012||Brief amici curiae of Former Members of the National Research Council Committee on Mitigating Wetland Losses filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of National Governors Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Planning Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2012||Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 28 2012||Record received from the Supreme Court of Florida. (1 box)|
|Jan 4 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jan 8 2013||Reply of petitioner Coy A. Koontz, Jr. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 15 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Paul J. Beard, II, Sacramento, Cal. For respondent: Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Washington, D. C.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 25 2013||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 29 2013||MANDATE ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.