Here's Lyle. We have the first opinion.
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment. Spider-Man case.
Kagan has the opinion for the Court.
The decision of the NInth Circuit is affirmed, 6-3.
Alito dissents, joined by the Chief and Thomas.
Stare decisis requires this Court to adhere to its decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co.
There will be more. That's almost as much fun to type as #waitingforlyle.
Don't type the phrase "the Ninth Circuit is affirmed" that often. My fingers rebelled.
The question in this case was whether the Supreme Court would overrule a very old decision that prohibits a patentee from collecting royalties after the patent expires, even if the patentee and licensee expressly agreed that the royalties would last longer. The Court was encouraged to overrule that precedent because it doesn't make much economic sense. The Court said it would adhere to its old rule anyway.
We could hear from any of the Justices next, because Justice Kagan is the most junior justice. (And, yes, that means she does have to open the door and take notes at the Justices' Conference.) Justice Breyer did it for eleven years, so she doesn't get to complain yet.
Justice Kagan's decision refers to the stare decisis justification for Brulotte as "superpowred" because (1) it involves a statute; and (2) it involves contracts that have been made in reliance on the settled rule.
Here's Lyle with the second opinion.
Sotomayor is writing. Decision of the NInth Circuit is affirmed.
Statute is facially unconstitlutional because it fails to provide motel owners with an opportunity for pre-compliance review.
Sorry I know I spelled unconstitutional wrong.
this is not it; there are more opinions.
My internet is a little slow, so my computer can't keep up with my speedy fingers.
Yes, a good day for the Ninth Circuit.
The question in this case was whether a Los Angeles ordinance that required hotel owners to keep registries of guests, and allowed officers to search them without any suspicion is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Court the ordinance facially unconstitutional.
G&R means Goldstein & Russell; Tom Goldstein, our publisher, argued on behalf of the hotel owners.
This is a strong decision for Fourth Amendment lovers.
Here's Lyle. THird opinion.
Breyer for the Court. The decision of the SEventh Circuit is vacated and remanded.
This is a pretrial detention case.
Vote is 5-4. Under Section 1883, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim.
Section 1983, not 1883, sorry.
Scalia dissents, joined by Chief and Thomas, and Alito dissents as well.
Could be from anyone from Breyer on up; nothing from Alito today.
At least one more. NOt clear how many.
This case arises out of an incident in a Wisconsin jail. Kingsley was waiting for trial on a drug charge when he got into a dispute with jail officers, who handcuffed him, forcibly removed him from his cell, and later used a taser on him. Kingsley then filed a lawsuit, alleging that jail officials had used excessive force. The question before the Court was what standard of review should apply to an excessive force claim by a pretrial detainee.
We have over 42K on the blog right now.
The Court ruled in favor of Kingsley, holding that courts should apply an objective test – the same Fourth Amendment excessive force test that applies to people who have not been arrested.
Submit Event
