First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, No. 10–708.
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM. |
| Citation | 183 L.Ed.2d 611,132 S.Ct. 2536 (Mem),567 U.S. 756 |
| Parties | FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to the First American Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Denise P. EDWARDS. |
| Docket Number | No. 10–708. |
| Decision Date | 28 June 2012 |
567 U.S. 756
132 S.Ct. 2536 (Mem)
183 L.Ed.2d 611
FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Successor in Interest to the First American Corporation, et al., Petitioners
v.
Denise P. EDWARDS.
No. 10–708.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 28, 2012.
Aaron M. Panner, Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Anthony A. Yang, for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Respondent.
Charles A. Newman, Michael J. Duvall, SNR Denton US LLP, St. Louis, MO, Michael K. Kellogg, Aaron M. Panner, Counsel of Record, Gregory G. Rapawy, Brendan J. Crimmins, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Petitioners.
Jeffrey A. Lamken, Counsel of Record, Robert K. Kry, Martin V. Totaro, Lucas M. Walker, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, Richard S. Gordon, Martin E. Wolf, Gordon & Wolf Chtd., Towson, MD, James W. Spertus, Law Offices of James W. Spertus, Los Angeles, CA, Cyril V. Smith, Conor B. O'Croinin, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Baltimore, MD, David A. Reiser Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC, Edward Kramer, Fair Housing Law Clinic, Cleveland–Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, OH, for Respondent.
Prior report: 9th Cir., 610 F.3d 514.
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE LAW WANTS TO BE FORMAL.
...REV. EN BANC 207, 208-11 (2015) (explaining how these questions came before the Supreme Court). (239) See First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 567 U.S. 756 (2012) (certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted). (240) See Brief of Reporter and Advisers to Restatement (Third) of Restitution and ......
-
In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., Case No. 10-cv-04809-EJD
...its decision in the event Edwards was reversed. Dkt. No. 44 at 3. When the Supreme Court dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012), however, Defendant withdrew its standing argument against the SCA claim. Dkt. No. 46 at 2 n.2.Then, befo......
-
Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961
...explained that it would continue to challenge the District Court's conclusion. We eventually dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012) (per curiam ), and Google then withdrew its argument that Gaos lacked standing for the SCA claims. Ga......
-
In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig., Case No. 10-cv-04809-EJD
...its decision in the event Edwards was reversed. Dkt. No. 44 at 3. When the Supreme Court dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012), however, Defendant withdrew its standing argument against the SCA claim. Dkt. No. 46 at 2 n.2.Then, befo......
-
Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961
...explained that it would continue to challenge the District Court's conclusion. We eventually dismissed Edwards as improvidently granted, 567 U.S. 756, 132 S.Ct. 2536, 183 L.Ed.2d 611 (2012) (per curiam ), and Google then withdrew its argument that Gaos lacked standing for the SCA claims. Ga......
-
THE LAW WANTS TO BE FORMAL.
...REV. EN BANC 207, 208-11 (2015) (explaining how these questions came before the Supreme Court). (239) See First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 567 U.S. 756 (2012) (certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted). (240) See Brief of Reporter and Advisers to Restatement (Third) of Restitution and ......