VISA INC., ET AL.,

v.

SAM OSBORN, ET AL. VISA INC., ET AL., V. MARY STOUMBOS, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• McWILLIAMS v. Jefferson S. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (U.S. 2017)
  …once granted). And we have not hesitated to enforce these Rules when petitioners who "persuaded us to grant certiorari" on one question instead "chose to rely on a different argument in their merits briefing." Visa, Inc. v. Osborn, 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 289, 196 L.Ed.2d 396 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted) (dismissing cases as improvidently granted on this ground). These Rules exist for good reasons. Among other things, they give the parties notice of the question to be decided and ensure th…
• Madison v. Alabama, 139 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2019)
  …obtain review of one question and then switch to an entirely different question after review is granted. In the past when counsel have done this, we have dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. See, e.g., Visa, Inc. v . Osborn , 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 289, 196 L.Ed.2d 396 (2016) ; City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan , 575 U. S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1765, 191 L.Ed.2d 856 (2015). We should do that here. Instead, the majority rewards counsel's trick. It vacates the judgment below because it is unsu…

Authorities Cited

• City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco v. Sheehan., 135 S. Ct. 1765 (U.S. 2015)