|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-457||9th Cir.||Mar 21, 2017||Jun 12, 2017||8-0||Ginsburg||OT 2016|
Holding: Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification (or, as in this case, an order striking class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 12, 2017. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 9 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2015)|
|Oct 28 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2015.|
|Oct 28 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 11 2015||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Nov 12 2015||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Dec 14 2015||Brief of respondents Seth Baker, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Dec 22 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 22 2015||Reply of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 11 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.|
|Jan 15 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to the following Question: Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III and 28 U. S. C. §1291 to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their individual claims with prejudice.|
|Feb 23 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Mar 2 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 11, 2016.|
|Mar 2 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including May 16, 2016.|
|Mar 11 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Mar 11 2016||Brief of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed.|
|Mar 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Mar 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Washington Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed.|
|Mar 18 2016||Brief amici curiae of Civil Procedure Scholars filed.|
|May 16 2016||Brief of respondents Seth Baker, et al. filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Public Justice, P.C. filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amici curiae of Complex Litigation Law Professors filed.|
|May 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Public Citizen, Inc. filed.|
|Jun 15 2016||Reply of petitioner Microsoft Corporation filed.|
|Feb 3 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, March 21, 2017|
|Feb 3 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 6 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER. Also received SEALED pleadings.|
|Feb 9 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 21 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondents: Peter K. Stris, Los Angeles, Cal.|
|Jun 12 2017||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Jul 14 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
At 10:00 a.m. EST, SCOTUS will hear argument on whether, when police are pursuing someone for a misdemeanor, that is always an “exigent circumstance” that will allow the officer to follow the suspect into a house without a warrant. More from @AHoweBlogger
Justices to consider whether “hot pursuit” justifies entering the home without a warrant - SCOTUSblog
An old English maxim instructs that a man’s home is his castle – a refuge from the outside world. On W...
At 10:00 a.m. EST, the court will hear argument on whether a federal appellate court can consider an asylum seeker’s testimony as credible in its own review when immigration courts fail to make an explicit credibility determination. More from Eunice Lee:
Court to assess when to treat asylum seekers’ testimony as credible - SCOTUSblog
In asylum cases before the immigration and federal courts, responsibility for making credibility determinations rests wi...
Here’s the story from @jamesromoser on the Biden administration’s latest effort to reduce the Supreme Court’s already whittled-down docket. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/02/federal-government-asks-court-to-scrap-challenge-to-medicaid-work-requirements/
New: The federal gov't wants SCOTUS to nix the upcoming case on Trump-era Medicaid work-requirement approvals (currently scheduled for oral argument on 3/29). The Biden administration -- in the process of rescinding the policy -- tells SCOTUS it no longer needs to hear the case.
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.