|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-751||6th Cir.||Apr 2, 2014||Jun 25, 2014||9-0||Breyer||OT 2013|
Holding: When a decision by a fiduciary of an “employee stock ownership plan” (ESOP) to buy or hold the employer’s stock is challenged in court, the fiduciary is not entitled to a “presumption of prudence.” Instead, ESOP fiduciaries are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the fund's assets.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 25, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 14 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2013)|
|Jan 15 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2013.|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Keycorp filed.|
|Jan 28 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Feb 22 2013||Brief of respondents John Dudenhoeffer, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 5 2013||Reply of petitioners Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. filed.|
|Mar 6 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 22, 2013.|
|Mar 25 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Nov 12 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Nov 25 2013||Supplemental response filed by petitioners Fifth Third Bancorp, et al.|
|Nov 26 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.|
|Nov 26 2013||Supplemental brief of respondents John Dudenhoeffer, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 13 2013||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 8 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 2, 2014|
|Jan 14 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit. The record is electronic.|
|Jan 27 2014||Joint appendix filed (3 volumes). (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jan 27 2014||Brief of petitioners Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. filed.|
|Jan 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jan 30 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Feb 3 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of KeyCorp filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Delta Air Lines, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of ESOP Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2014||Brief of respondents John Dudenhoeffer, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 26 2014||Letter proposing a lodging of material published in Tax Notes, March 2014, received from counsel for respondents. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2014||Proposal of counsel for respondents to lodge copies of an unpublished article cited to in their brief on the merits.|
|Mar 4 2014||Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 5 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 5 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 21 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Mar 24 2014||Reply of petitioners Fifth Third Bancorp, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Argued. For petitioners: Robert A. Long, Jr., Washington, D. C. For respondents: Ronald Mann, New York, N. Y.; and Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 25 2014||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jul 28 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
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.
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.