First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 28 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10–708.,10–708. |
| 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. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Google Referrer Header Privacy Litig.
...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, before this Court ma......
-
Frank v. Gaos
...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. Gaos' putative class action was con......
-
THE REMAND POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT'S ROLE.
...(390) Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1544, 1550. (391) Id. (392) Id. at 1546 (citing First Am. Fin. Corp. v. Edwards, 567 U.S. 756, 757 (2012) (per (393) See, e.g., William Baude, Standing in the Shadow of Congress, 2016 SUP. CT. REV. 197, 211-12; Kevin Russell, First American Financial v. Edwards: ......
-
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 ......
-
Will the Real Injured Party Please Stand Up? Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union and the Eighth Circuit's Failure to Correctly Acknowledge the Importance of the Separation of Powers Innate Within the Standing Doctrine
...of Appellant Jarek Charvat, supra note 44, at 9 (citing Edwards v. First Am. Fin. Corp., 610 F.3d 514 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. dismissed, 132 S. Ct. 2536 (June 28, 2012) (No. 10-708) (per 46. Brief of Appellant Jarek Charvat, supra note 44, at 9. 47. See Charvat, 725 F.3d at 821, 825. 48. Bri......
-
Where Do We Go from Here: Article Iii Standing and Cy Pres-only Settlements in Privacy Class Actions in the Wake of Frank v. Gaos
...supra note 16, at 5. It should be noted that the district court's analysis pre-dates the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo.20. 567 U.S. 756 (June 28, 2012); see also Frank v. Gaos, slip op. at 3, 5, supra note 9.21. Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CACC"), Gaos, No. 5:10-cv-04809......