Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Can the FTC unilaterally reinterpret an injunction years after its entry to seek contempt sanctions based on a more restrictive standard found nowhere in the injunction itself or does that violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d) and due process?
II. Did Hi-Tech waive all challenges to the specificity of the injunction in contempt proceedings by not previously raising an argument Hi-Tech couldn't have foreseen?
III. Does an appellate court have discretion to find an issue waived even though the district court did not and its ruling on the merits was necessary to the judgment from which Hi-Tech appealed?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can the FTC unilaterally reinterpret an injunction to seek contempt sanctions based on a more restrictive standard?
2020-11-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-10-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-10-09
Reply of petitioners Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
2020-09-08
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until October 14, 2020 granted.
2020-09-04
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from September 23, 2020 to October 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-04
Brief of respondent Federal Trade Commission in opposition filed.
2020-08-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 4, 2020.
2020-08-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 31, 2020 to September 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-07-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 31, 2020.
2020-07-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 31, 2020 to August 31, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2020)