|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-574||9th Cir.||Nov 4, 2013||Feb 25, 2014||9-0||Thomas||OT 2013|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondents in this case.
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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 6 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 10, 2012)|
|Nov 30 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 9, 2013.|
|Jan 4 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 24, 2013.|
|Jan 24 2013||Brief of respondents Gina Fiore, and Keith Gipson in opposition filed.|
|Feb 6 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 22, 2013.|
|Feb 6 2013||Reply of petitioner Anthony Walden filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 1, 2013.|
|Mar 4 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 7 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Mar 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.|
|Mar 25 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 28, 2013.|
|Mar 25 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 26, 2013.|
|May 28 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received)|
|May 28 2013||Brief of petitioner Anthony Walden filed.|
|May 31 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Charles W. Adams filed.|
|Jun 3 2013||Brief amici curiae of New England Legal Foundation and Associated Industries of Massachusetts filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed.|
|Jul 26 2013||Brief of respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson filed.|
|Jul 29 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 2 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group filed.|
|Aug 19 2013||CIRCULATED..|
|Aug 20 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 4, 2013.|
|Aug 26 2013||Reply of petitioner Anthony Walden filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 24 2013||Record from U.S.C.A for 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 24 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for District of Nevada is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Oct 7 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 4 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.|
|Feb 25 2014||Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous court.|
|Mar 31 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.