|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-873||6th Cir.||Dec 3, 2013||Mar 25, 2014||9-0||Scalia||OT 2013|
Holding: Static Control has adequately pleaded the elements of a Lanham Act cause of action for false advertising: an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentation.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on March 25, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 14 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 15, 2013)|
|Feb 15 2013||Waiver of right of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. to respond filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 1 2013||Response Requested . (Due April 1, 2013)|
|Mar 25 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 1, 2013.|
|May 1 2013||Brief of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|May 10 2013||Reply of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed.|
|May 14 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 30, 2013.|
|Jun 3 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 5 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 20 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of niether party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jun 21 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2013.|
|Jun 21 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 15, 2013.|
|Aug 16 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Aug 16 2013||Brief of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Aug 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 17 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday December 3, 2013|
|Sep 17 2013||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 19 2013||Record from U.S.C.A. for 6th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 15 2013||Brief of respondent Static Control Components, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 17 2013||Brief amicus curiae of International Trademark Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Antitrust Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 12 2013||Reply of petitioner Lexmark International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 15 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Eastern District of Kentucky is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Dec 3 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Steven B. Loy, Lexington, Ky. For respondent: Jameson R. Jones, Denver, Colo.|
|Jan 17 2014||Record received from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Kentucky. The record is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Mar 25 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Apr 28 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Aug 1 2014||Record returned for U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Kentucky.|
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.