|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.