|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-626||11th Cir.||Oct 1, 2012||Jan 15, 2013||7-2||Breyer||OT 2012|
Holding: Lozman's floating home is not a "vessel" for purposes of 1 U.S.C. § 3, and therefore federal maritime jurisdiction is not triggered, because -- except for the fact that it floats -- nothing about it suggests that it was intended to transport people or things over water.
Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on January 15, 2013. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 17 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2011)|
|Dec 13 2011||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2012.|
|Dec 19 2011||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Maritime Law Association of the United States|
|Jan 20 2012||Brief of respondent The City of Riviera Beach, Florida in opposition filed.|
|Jan 31 2012||Reply of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 1 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.|
|Feb 21 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 21 2012||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by The Maritime Law Association of the United States GRANTED.|
|Mar 8 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 7, 2012.|
|Mar 8 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 10, 2012.|
|May 4 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including May 8, 2012,|
|May 4 2012||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 12, 2012.|
|May 8 2012||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|May 8 2012||Brief of petitioner Fane Lozman filed.|
|May 15 2012||Brief amicus curiae of the Solicitor General filed.|
|May 15 2012||Brief amici curiae of Seattle Floating Homes Association, et al. filed.|
|May 15 2012||Brief amicus curiae of American Gaming Association filed.|
|May 15 2012||Brief amici curiae of Maritime Law Professors filed.|
|Jun 27 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner|
|Jul 10 2012||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent .|
|Jul 12 2012||Brief of respondent The City of Riviera Beach, Florida filed.|
|Jul 19 2012||Brief amici curiae of Thirty-six Admiralty and Maritime Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Maritime Law Association of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Kevin M. Clermont filed.|
|Jul 19 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jul 19 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Marine Bankers Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 23 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, October 1, 2012|
|Jul 24 2012||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 3 2012||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit. (1 envelope)|
|Aug 7 2012||Reply of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 13 2012||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Aug 14 2012||The parties are directed, and the Solicitor General is invited, to file letter briefs addressing the following question: The res in this putative in rem admiralty proceeding was sold at a judicial auction in execution of the district courts judgment on a maritime lien and a maritime trespass claim, Petn. App. 9a-10a, and subsequently destroyed, Petr. Br. 10-11. Does either the judicial auction or the subsequent destruction of the res render this case moot? The briefs, limited to 10 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, August 28, 2012.|
|Aug 28 2012||Supplemental brief of the Solicitor General filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 28 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner Fane Lozman filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 28 2012||Supplemental brief of respondent The City of Riviera Beach, Florida filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 10 2012||U.S..D.C. for Southern District of Florida. (1 box)|
|Oct 1 2012||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. and Curtis E. Gannon, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 15 2013||Judgment REVERSED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined.|
|Feb 19 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 2 2013||Record returned to U.S.C.A. for Eleventh Circuit.|
|Apr 2 2013||Record returned to U.S.D.C. for District of Columbia.|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
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.
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.