|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-550||9th Cir.||Feb 24, 2015||May 18, 2015||9-0||Breyer||OT 2014|
Holding: Because a fiduciary normally has a continuing duty to monitor investments and remove imprudent ones, a plaintiff may allege that a fiduciary breached a duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones. Such a claim is timely as long it is filed within six years of the alleged breach of continuing duty.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 18, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 30 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 2, 2013)|
|Nov 15 2013||Waiver of right of respondents Edison International, et al. to respond filed.|
|Nov 26 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.|
|Dec 9 2013||Response Requested . (Due January 8, 2014)|
|Dec 12 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 7, 2014.|
|Feb 7 2014||Brief of respondents Edison International, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 21 2014||Reply of petitioners Glenn Tibble, et al. filed.|
|Feb 26 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 21, 2014.|
|Mar 3 2014||Supplemental brief of petitioners Glenn Tibble, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 20 2014||Letter of March 20, 2014, from counsel for respondents received. (Distributed)|
|Mar 24 2014||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Aug 15 2014||Letter of August 15, 2014, from counsel for respondents received.|
|Aug 19 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Sep 3 2014||Supplemental brief of respondents Edison International, et al. filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 2 2014||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: "Whether a claim that ERISA plan fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to plan participants, even though identical lower-cost institution-class mutual funds were available, is barred by 29 U. S. C. §1113(1) when fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost mutual funds as plan investments more than six years before the claim was filed." .|
|Oct 30 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2014.|
|Oct 30 2014||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 16, 2015.|
|Oct 30 2014||Petitioners' will file their reply brief on the merits on or before February 13, 2015.|
|Nov 6 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Nov 24 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Dec 2 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 2 2014||Brief of petitioners Glenn Tibble, et al. filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Cambridge Fiduciary Services LLC filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Pension Rights Center filed.|
|Dec 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of AARP filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 24, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Dec 22 2014||Record from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 8 2015||Record received from U.S.D.C. Central Dist. of California Western Division. The record is electronic and located on PACER, also received 1 Envelope of Exhibits.|
|Jan 16 2015||Brief of respondents Edison International, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The ESOP Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Manufacturers, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2015||Brief amicus curiae of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 13 2015||Reply of petitioners Glenn Tibble, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 19 2015||Letter from counsel for the respondents filed.|
|Feb 24 2015||Argued. For petitioners: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Jonathan D. Hacker, Washington, D. C.|
|May 18 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 19 2015||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.