|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-338||6th Cir.||Mar 29, 2016||May 16, 2016||8-0||Ginsburg||OT 2015|
Holding: Assuming, arguendo, that special counsel do not rank as "state officers" within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, special counsel's use of the Ohio attorney general's letterhead in their efforts on behalf of the attorney general to collect debts owed to the state or one of its instrumentalities does not offend 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, which bars "false, deceptive, or misleading representation[s]... in connection with the collection of any debt."
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on May 16, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 15 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 19, 2015)|
|Oct 19 2015||Brief amici curiae of State of Michigan and 7 Other States filed.|
|Oct 19 2015||Brief of respondents Pamela Gillie, and Hazel Meadows in opposition filed.|
|Oct 29 2015||Reply of petitioners Mark J. Sheriff, et al. filed.|
|Nov 4 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.|
|Nov 30 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.|
|Dec 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|Dec 11 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 21 2016||Brief of respondents Eric Jones, et al. in support filed.|
|Jan 25 2016||Brief of petitioners Mark J. Sheriff, et al. filed.|
|Jan 25 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 29 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 29, 2016|
|Feb 1 2016||Brief amici curiae of State of Michigan and 11 Other States filed.|
|Feb 8 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Feb 9 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit is electronic.|
|Feb 10 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 24 2016||Brief of respondents Pamela Gillie and Hazel Meadows filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 2 2016||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 2 2016||Brief amicus curiae of NHS Consumer Law Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 2 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 2 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Consumer Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 2 2016||Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 2 2016||Brief amici curiae of 5 Consumer Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 17 2016||Reply of petitioners Mark J. Sheriff, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 22 2016||Reply of respondents Eric Jones and the Law Office of Eric A. Jones. LLC filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 29 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio. For respondents: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.; and Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 16 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 17 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
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.