No. 20-884

Chevron Corporation, et al. v. San Mateo County, California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-01-04
Status: GVR
Type: Paid
Relisted (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: 28-usc-1442 28-usc-1447d appellate-review civil-rights-removal federal-officer-removal jurisdictional-issue remand-order statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw
Latest Conference: 2021-05-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) authorizes appellate review of any issue encompassed in a remand order when removal was premised in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) authorizes appellate review of any issue encompassed in a remand order when removal was premised in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, or the civilrights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

Docket Entries

2021-06-25
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2021-05-24
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>BP p.l.c.</i> v. <i>Mayor and City Council of Baltimore</i>, 593 U. S. ___ (2021). Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-05-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/20/2021.
2021-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-05
Brief of respondents County of San Mateo, et al., et al. in opposition filed.
2021-02-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 5, 2021.
2021-01-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 3, 2021 to April 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 3, 2021)

Attorneys

Chevron Corp., et al.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr.Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Petitioner
County of San Mateo, et al., et al.
Victor M. Sher — Respondent
Victor M. Sher — Respondent