Live blog of opinions | February 26, 2019 (with Casetext’s Jake Heller)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert. Jake Heller joined us to discuss Casetext’s approach to public access to legal knowledge and how Casetext supports litigators and journalists. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
-
Hey everyone, I’m Jake Heller, the CEO and co-founder of Casetext. I’m stoked to be here and to support SCOTUSblog!
-
It's hard to game out which justices might be writing which opinions, except that the odds are good that Justice Kavanaugh is writing either Nielsen v. Preap or DeVries, because he didn't join the Court until the second week of the sitting. (If I had to bet, I would bet on DeVries, which happens to be a Goldstein & Russell case.)
-
It's pretty quiet here in the press room today, even though we are expecting opinions. Today is not one of the higher-profile argument days, and there's a lot of competing news, including across the street at the Capitol, that is drawing away some of the reporters who might otherwise be here.
-
For what it's worth, and for any journalists working the Supreme Court beat here to listen in for the latest on the opinions -- we hope we can support you too with our program for journalists: https://casetext.com/journalists
-
One of my colleagues here in the press room also reports that people are already lined up outside for tomorrow's argument in the Bladensburg cross case. Today is sort of typical late February weather here in DC -- cold but not freezing -- so it's going to be a long day and night for those folks.
-
For the new or new-ish here, the Public Information Office brings out the closed boxes of opinions before they are released. The number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions that we can expect. So it's not likely to be a day with a large number of opinions.
-
The good news is that you can sign up for a free trial, and when it expires, you can still look up free opinions on Casetext forever. The only thing you really need to pay for on Casetext is the advanced technology, like CARA, where litigators only need to drag-and-drop a litigation document, and your search results will be tailored to the facts, legal issues, jurisdiction, party, etc., of the matter you’re working on.
It's too bad that you have to pay for CaseText. That makes it more difficult to be able to read the underlying opinions.
-DS -
While we wait for the first opinion, a final note for the lawyers online that want to give Casetext a try. To celebrate this relationship, we're running a special for SCOTUSblog readers for the next two weeks: 30% off our normal subscription price (less than $50/month). To take advantage of the offer, go to https://casetext.com/subscribe/casetext/scotusblog
-
Here is the opinion in Nutraceutical. Howard Wasserman will have our analysis:
-
For those interested, here's the lower court opinion. It will be red-flagged on Casetext shortly:
Lambert ex rel. Situated v. Nutraceutical Corp, 870 F.3d 1170 | Casetext
holding that difficulties with calculating class-wide damages will not defeat class certification, but only if "a valid method has been proposed for calculating those damages" -
I got a question about the panel in the Lambert opinion. You can usually find it towards the top of the opinion. In this case, the Ninth Circuit judges were: Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. The Ninth Circuit opinion was written by Paez.
-
In case you missed it earlier, I wanted to let all journalists and bloggers covering the law know that we support you and want to find ways to help you make your jobs easier (and, you no longer need an expensive Westlaw or LexisNexis account to report on the law!): https://casetext.com/journalists
-
Here are some cases that CARA, our AI technology, recommends you check out if you're interested in today's SCOTUS opinion that are related to, but not cited in the opinion: https://casetext.com/search?q=23(f)%20and%20tolling&p=1&brief=MTNiMzY5ZjItYTA4OC00NmNlLWIwZTQtM2EwMmM4OWE1NWQx&tab=docResults&jxs=&sort=relevance&type=case&inContext=falseLikely, these are cases that may be affected by today's ruling (either upheld or reversed).
-
Hi all, that's all for today! Thank you for joining us. We will be back tomorrow for more opinions. Maybe Sturgeon? That's what at least one of you seems to want. We'll also be joined by Casetext's Pablo Arredondo. Up today on the blog we'll have Howard Wasserman's analysis of today's opinion, and Amy Howe's analysis of argument in Haymond and Fiona Doherty's analysis of argument in Mont. Hope you all have a great day!
Submit Event
