|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-9026||4th Cir.||Dec 2, 2014||Jan 13, 2015||9-0||Scalia||OT 2014|
Holding: A bank robber “forces [a] person to accompany him,” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), when he forces that person to go somewhere with him, even if the movement occurs entirely within a single building or over a short distance.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on January 13, 2015.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 7 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 7, 2014)|
|Mar 31 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 7, 2014.|
|May 7 2014||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|May 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 5, 2014.|
|Jun 9 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.|
|Jun 16 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.|
|Jun 23 2014||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 22, 2014.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 7, 2014.|
|Aug 22 2014||Joint appendix filed.|
|Aug 22 2014||Brief of petitioner Larry Whitfield filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Aug 29 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Center on the Administration of Criminal Law filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 2, 2014.|
|Sep 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit.|
|Sep 23 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER, part of the record is SEALED.|
|Oct 7 2014||Brief of respondent the United States filed.|
|Oct 27 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 6 2014||Reply of petitioner Larry Whitfield filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 2 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Joshua B. Carpenter, Asheville, N. C. For respondent: Brian H. Fletcher, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jan 13 2015||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Feb 18 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.