Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Elsa Hall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ethlyn Louise Hall and as Successor Trustee of the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust v. Samuel Hall, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 15-1564 · judgment February 10, 2017

Decided · March 27, 2018
At-filing estimate: 8% cert probability (95% interval 5%–13%)

Before the decision, about 2× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a petition filed soon after the judgment below and a Third Circuit decision below.

Question presented

The deadline for filing an appeal has "jurisdictional consequences" and "should above all be clear." Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202 (1988). The deadline is measured from the entry of final judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Fed. R. App. P. 4. Despite the need for clarity, for at least forty-five years the courts of appeals have disagreed as to when their jurisdiction attaches if cases are consolidated and a final judgment is entered in only one of the cases. The split and lack of clarity have widened with the passage of time-there are four different circuit rules for determining appellate jurisdiction in consolidated cases. This Court has twice set out to resolve the fourway split. The Court granted certiorari in Erickson v. Maine Central Railroad Co., 498 U.S. 807 (1990); but subsequently dismissed the petition. 498 U.S. 1018 (1990) (mem.). The Court again granted certiorariand partially addressed the split-in Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp.,135 S.Ct. 897 (2015). Gelboim held that for cases consolidated in multidistrict litigation, a final judgment in a single case triggers the "appeal-clock" for that case. But, by limiting its holding to multidistrict litigation, Gelboim left the split unresolved for cases consolidated in a single district under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42. The question presented is: Should the clarity Gelboim gave to multidistrict cases be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appealclock for that case?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Andrew C. Simpson
Andrew C Simpson, PC

For respondent
Neal Kumar Katyal
Milbank LLP

Case

Subject area
Judicial Power (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
1 merits
(1 respondent)

Argument & decision

Argued January 16, 2018 — Andrew C. Simpson · Neal K. Katyal. Listen and read along · the Court’s audio

Decided March 27, 2018. Opinion by Roberts, C.J..

Proceedings

  1. Apr 30 2018
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Mar 27 2018
    Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
  3. Jan 16 2018
    Argued. For petitioner: Andrew C. Simpson, Christiansted, V. I. For respondents: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C.
  4. Jan 08 2018
    Reply of petitioner Elsa Hall filed. (Distributed)
  5. Dec 28 2017
    The record from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit is electronic.
  6. Dec 19 2017
    Brief amici curiae of Retired United States District Judges filed. (Distributed)
  7. Dec 18 2017
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 3rd Circuit.
  8. Dec 13 2017
    Brief of respondents Samuel Hall, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  9. Nov 22 2017
    CIRCULATED
  10. Nov 17 2017
    SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 16, 2018
  11. Nov 13 2017
    Brief of petitioner Elsa Hall filed.
  12. Nov 13 2017
    Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
  13. Sep 28 2017
    Petition GRANTED.
  14. Jul 11 2017
    Reply of petitioner Elsa Hall, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ethlyn Louise Hall and as Successor Trustee of the Ethlyn Louise Hall Family Trust filed. (Distributed)
  15. Jun 28 2017
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 25, 2017.
  16. Jun 14 2017
    Brief of respondents Samuel Hall, Jr. and Hall & Griffith, P.C. in opposition filed.
  17. May 15 2017
    Response Requested. (Due June 14, 2017)
  18. May 09 2017
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.
  19. Apr 20 2017
    Waiver of right of respondents Samuel Hall, Jr. and Hall & Griffith, P.C. to respond filed.
  20. Mar 17 2017
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 24, 2017)