|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-1315||9th Cir.||Jan 21, 2014||May 19, 2014||6-3||Ginsburg||OT 2013|
Holding: In a case by the owner of a screenplay alleging copyright infringement, the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked as a bar to the pursuit of a claim for damages brought within the three-year window established by Section 507(b) of the Copyright Act. However, in extraordinary circumstances, laches may, at the very outset of the litigation, curtail the relief equitably awarded.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on May 19, 2014. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 30 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2013)|
|May 16 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 2, 2013.|
|Jun 3 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Califorina Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 2 2013||Brief of respondents Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 20 2013||Reply of petitioner Paula Petrella filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 21 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Oct 1 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 4 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Oct 9 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Nov 4 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 21, 2014.|
|Nov 15 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Nov 15 2013||Brief of petitioner Paula Petrella filed.|
|Nov 19 2013||Record from the U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. There are SEALED documents in this record.|
|Nov 20 2013||Brief amici curiae of Southwestern Law Students Orly Ravid, and Andrew Pruitt, and Profesors Robert C. Lind and Michael M. Epstein filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 21 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 21 2013||Brief amicus curiae of California Society of Entertainment Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 21 2013||Brief amici curiae of Professor Robin Feldman, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 21 2013||Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the Central District of California (Western District - LA) is electronic and located on PACER. Also received are SEALED documents in this record, which consist of Volume 1 - Volume 6. (1 box)|
|Nov 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of Authors Guild, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2013||Brief amici curiae of Douglas Laycock, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Ralph Oman, Former Register of Copyrights of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 6 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 16 2013||Brief of respondents Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Association for Competitive Technology filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Dish Network L.L.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of New England Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of T. Leigh Anenson filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 3 2014||Reply of petitioner Paula Petrella filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 10 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Jan 21 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Stephanos Bibas, Philadelphia, Pa.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Mark A. Perry, Washington, D. C.|
|May 19 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined.|
|Jun 20 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jun 24 2014||Record for U.S.D.C. Central District of California (Western Division) has been returned.|
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.