|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-1307||10th Cir.||Jan 7, 2019||Mar 20, 2019||9-0||Breyer||OT 2018|
Holding: A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 20, 2019. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 13 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 16, 2018)|
|Apr 09 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 16, 2018 to May 16, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 11 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 16, 2018.|
|May 16 2018||Brief of respondents McCarthy & Holthus LLP, et al. in opposition filed.|
|May 23 2018||Waiver of the 14-Day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.|
|May 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.|
|May 30 2018||Reply of petitioner Dennis Obduskey filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 11 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 18 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/21/2018.|
|Jun 27 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2018.|
|Jun 28 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 16 2018||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the opening briefs on the merits filed.|
|Jul 23 2018||Joint motion to extend the time to file the opening briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 10, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including November 7, 2018.|
|Aug 08 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Dennis Obduskey.|
|Sep 04 2018||Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, et al..|
|Sep 10 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Sep 10 2018||Brief of petitioner Dennis Obduskey filed.|
|Sep 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, INC filed.|
|Sep 17 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Consumer Law Center filed.|
|Sep 17 2018||Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed.|
|Nov 07 2018||Brief of respondent McCarthy & Holthus LLP filed.|
|Nov 07 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Michigan Creditors Bar Association filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Creditors Bar Association filed.|
|Nov 13 2018||Amicus brief of Legal League 100 not accepted for filing. (November 15, 2018) (Duplicate submission)|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Legal League 100 filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amici curiae of Mortgage Bankers Association, et al. filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amici curiae of United Trustee's Association, et al. filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of The Commercial Law League of America filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of USFN - America's Mortgage Banking Attorneys filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association filed.|
|Nov 14 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Nov 28 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, January 7, 2019|
|Nov 30 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 03 2018||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Dec 07 2018||Reply of petitioner Dennis Obduskey filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 11 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit.|
|Dec 11 2018||Record from the U.S.C.A. 10th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 07 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex. For respondent: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C.; and Jonathan C. Bond, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Mar 20 2019||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Apr 22 2019||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.