No. 20-458
Michael B. Brown v. Department of Labor
Response WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: administrative-law civil-procedure deposition-modification evidence factual-finding federal-rules-of-civil-procedure petition-for-review regulatory-compliance sarbanes-oxley whistleblower-protection
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess Securities
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a judge's change of a party's transcribed deposition is an appropriate factual finding, conclusion, and decision
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION PRESENTED . Whether a judge’s change of a party’s transcribed deposition is an appropriate factual finding, : conclusion, and decision defined by Sarbanes-Oxley’s 29 C.F.R. 1980.109 to require a 29 C.F.R. 1980.110 ; petition for review in 14 days to consider Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(d)(1), (3) motion to resolve a claim:on the merits? : li _
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2020-12-30
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2020-12-07
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/4/2020.
2020-11-05
Waiver of right of respondent Department of Labor to respond filed.
2020-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 9, 2020)
Attorneys
Department of Labor
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent