Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
David C. Shinn v. Ryan Robert Baker
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 18-16699 · judgment March 13, 2020
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and counsel who has filed here before.
Questions presented
In United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020), this Court unanimously held that “[i]n our adversarial system of adjudication, [federal courts] follow the principle of party presentation … rely[ing] on the parties to frame the issues for decision and assign to courts the role of neutral arbiter of matters the parties present.” United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020). It further explained that where a court of appeals injects new issues into an appeal not raised by the parties, it effects a “radical transformation of [the] case [that] goes well beyond the pale,” and unanimously reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit that had done just that. Id. at 1581-52. While Sineneng-Smith was pending, the Ninth Circuit committed essentially the same error, save for some features that make the departure from the ordinary adversarial system even worse here. Sineneng-Smith came down the day after the Ninth Circuit had denied a petition for rehearing. The questions presented are:
-
Whether this Court should reverse the decision below under Sineneng-Smith.
-
Whether this Court should grant, vacate and remand in light of Sineneng-Smith.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Drew Curtis Ensign
Holtzman Vogel
For respondent
Jeffrey James Rogers
Law Office of Jeffrey J Rogers
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Proceedings
- Apr 19 2021Petition DENIED.
- Mar 24 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
- Mar 23 2021Reply of petitioner David Shinn filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 04 2021Brief of Ryan Robert Baker in opposition not accepted for filing. (Dupilicate submission)(March 17, 2021)
- Mar 04 2021Brief of respondent Ryan Robert Baker in opposition filed. (Mar. 16, 2021)
- Jan 05 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 8, 2021. See Rule 30.1.
- Dec 23 2020Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 6, 2021 to March 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 07 2020Response Requested. (Due January 6, 2021)
- Nov 24 2020DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
- Oct 05 2020Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 12, 2020)