Walden v. Fiore
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-574 | 9th Cir. | Nov 4, 2013 | Feb 25, 2014 | 9-0 | Thomas | OT 2013 |
Holding: When the conduct of the defendant, a Georgia police officer, occurred entirely in Georgia, the mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to Nevada does not authorize jurisdiction over him in Nevada.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on February 25, 2014.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: The boundaries of specific jurisdiction (William Baude, February 26, 2014)
- Argument analysis: An attempt to find a narrow ground of agreement (William Baude, November 8, 2013)
- SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Gambling on personal jurisdiction (Stephen Wermiel, November 1, 2013)
- Argument preview: Where can a federal agent be sued? (William Baude, October 30, 2013)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, February 7, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 11/06/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2012) |
| 11/30/2012 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 9, 2013. |
| 01/04/2013 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 24, 2013. |
| 01/24/2013 | Brief of respondents Gina Fiore, and Keith Gipson in opposition filed. |
| 02/06/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 22, 2013. |
| 02/06/2013 | Reply of petitioner Anthony Walden filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/25/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 1, 2013. |
| 03/04/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 03/07/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| 03/12/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents. |
| 03/25/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 28, 2013. |
| 03/25/2013 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 26, 2013. |
| 05/28/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received) |
| 05/28/2013 | Brief of petitioner Anthony Walden filed. |
| 05/31/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Charles W. Adams filed. |
| 06/03/2013 | Brief amici curiae of New England Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts filed. |
| 06/04/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. |
| 06/04/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed. |
| 06/04/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association filed. |
| 06/04/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed. |
| 07/26/2013 | Brief of respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson filed. |
| 07/29/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
| 08/02/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group filed. |
| 08/19/2013 | CIRCULATED.. |
| 08/20/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 4, 2013. |
| 08/26/2013 | Reply of petitioner Anthony Walden filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/24/2013 | Record from U.S.C.A for 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 09/24/2013 | Record from U.S.D.C. for District of Nevada is electronic and located on PACER. |
| 10/07/2013 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
| 11/04/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Washington, D. C.; and Melissa Arbus Sherry, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondents: Thomas C. Goldstein, Washington, D. C. |
| 02/25/2014 | Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. |
| 03/31/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
Issue: (1) Whether due process permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole “contact” with the forum state is his knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that state; and (2) whether the judicial district where the plaintiff suffered injury is a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” for purposes of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) even if the defendant”s alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district.