|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-135||3d Cir.||Mar 25, 2013||Jun 10, 2013||9-0||Kagan||OT 2012|
Holding: When an arbitrator determines that the parties to an arbitration intended to authorize class-wide arbitration, that determination survives judicial review under § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act as long as the arbitrator was arguably construing the contract.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 10, 2013. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 27 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 30, 2012)|
|Aug 1 2012||Waiver of right of respondent John Ivan Sutter to respond filed.|
|Aug 15 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Aug 21 2012||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.|
|Aug 29 2012||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar.|
|Sep 6 2012||Response Requested . (Due October 9, 2012)|
|Oct 1 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 8, 2012.|
|Nov 6 2012||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 15, 2012.|
|Nov 15 2012||Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter in opposition filed.|
|Nov 20 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.|
|Nov 20 2012||Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 7 2012||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America GRANTED.|
|Dec 7 2012||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar GRANTED.|
|Dec 7 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 7 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 25, 2013|
|Jan 8 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jan 9 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jan 22 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed.|
|Jan 22 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. for 3rd Circuit is electronic.|
|Jan 22 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for the District of New Jersey is electronic.|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 28 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Equal Employment Advisory Council filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2013||Brief of respondent John Ivan Sutter filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Medical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2013||Reply of petitioner Oxford Health Plans LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Eric D. Katz, Roseland, N. J.|
|Jun 10 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined.|
|Jul 12 2013||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.
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 ...
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.