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. ยง 1391(b)(2) even if the defendant”s alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district.