|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-9490||Cal. App. 1st. Dist.||Jan 21, 2014||Apr 22, 2014||5-4||Thomas||OT 2013|
Holding: Under the totality of the circumstances, the traffic stop precipitated by an anonymous but reliable tip to 911 complied with the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on April 22, 2014. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 29 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 1, 2013)|
|Apr 8 2013||Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.|
|Apr 24 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 9, 2013.|
|May 13 2013||The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until June 3, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.|
|May 31 2013||Petitioners complied with order of May 13, 2013.|
|Jun 5 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 11 2013||Response Requested . (Due July 11, 2013)|
|Jul 9 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 12, 2013.|
|Aug 9 2013||Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.|
|Aug 16 2013||Reply of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed.|
|Aug 22 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 1 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Oct 10 2013||Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis filed by petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette.|
|Oct 10 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette.|
|Oct 28 2013||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 1, 2013.|
|Nov 4 2013||Motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis GRANTED.|
|Nov 4 2013||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners GRANTED. Paul Kleven, Esquire, of Berkeley, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioners in this case.|
|Nov 4 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT Tuesday, January 21, 2014.|
|Nov 15 2013||Joint appendix filed.|
|Nov 15 2013||Brief of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed.|
|Nov 21 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 21 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 16 2013||Brief of respondent California filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Florida, 31 Other States, and the District of Columbia filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2013||Record Received from U.S.C.A. 1st Appellate District. The record is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Jan 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jan 13 2014||Reply of petitioners Lorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Paul R. Kleven, Berkeley, Cal. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Jeffrey M. K. Laurence, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, Cal.; and Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Apr 22 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|May 27 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
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.