Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Due Process Clause is violated by a rule of preclusion that permits plaintiffs to invoke the preclusive effect of a prior jury's findings to establish elements of their claims without showing that those elements were actually decided in their favor in the prior proceeding
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents the same question as the forthcoming petitions for writs of certiorari in Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Boatright and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Searcy: Whether the Due Process Clause is violated by a rule of preclusion that permits plaintiffs to invoke the preclusive effect of a prior jury’s findings to establish elements of their claims without showing that those elements were actually decided in their favor in the prior proceeding.
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2018-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-19
Reply of petitioner Philip Morris USA Inc. filed.
2018-11-05
Brief of respondent Mary Brown, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rayfield Brown in opposition filed.
2018-10-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 26, 2018)
2018-09-12
Application (18A183) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until October 26, 2018.
2018-09-11
Application (18A183) to extend further the time from September 21, 2018 to October 26, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.
2018-08-21
Application (18A183) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 21, 2018.
2018-08-17
Application (18A183) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 27, 2018 to September 21, 2018, submitted to Justice Thomas.