FACEBOOK, INC.
v.
AMALGAMATED BANK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in this case as improvidently granted, meaning the Court concluded it should not have accepted the case for review. The opinion provides no substantive analysis of the underlying merits.
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, meaning the Court determined it should not have accepted the case for review and vacated its prior grant of certiorari.
[1] A writ of certiorari may be dismissed as improvidently granted.
[2] The Supreme Court may dismiss a writ of certiorari after granting it.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.”
The sole operative language of the opinion stating the Court's action dismissing the case it had previously agreed to hear.
The case involved Facebook, Inc. and Amalgamated Bank, with the dispute arising from a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Ci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amicus Curiae cases and more on FLexlaw
reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published.
Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors.
Argued November 6, 2024—Decided November 22, 2024 Certiorari dismissed.
Reported below: 87 F. 4th 934.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
Kannon K.
Shanmugam argued the cause for petitioners.
With him on the briefs were William T.
Marks, Matteo Godi, Audra J.
Soloway, Kristina A. Bunting, Joshua S.
Lipshutz, Katherine Moran Meeks, Michael J.
Kahn, and Patrick J.
Fuster. Kevin K.
Russell argued the cause for respondents.
With him on the brief were Daniel H.
Woofter, Jason C.
Davis, Salvatore J.
Graziano, Jeremy P. Robinson, Luke O.
Brooks, Joseph D.
Daley, and Darryl J.
Alvarado.
Kevin J.
Barber argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affrmance.
With him on the brief were Solicitor General Prelogar, Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, Megan Barbero, Michael A. Conley, Jeffrey A. Berger, and Emily True Parise.* *Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. by Judson O.
Littleton, Tyler S.
Badgley, and Kevin Carroll; for Law Professors et al. by Anthony J.
Franze, Kolya D.
Glick, and William T.
Sharon; for the Society for Corporate Governance by Christopher E.
Duffy; and for the Washing- ton Legal Foundation by Lyle Roberts, George E.
Anhang, Cory L.
Andrews, and John M.
Masslon II.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were filed for Financial Economists by Charles Gerstein, Jason Harrow, Leonard Barrack, Gerald J.
Rodos, and William C.
Fredericks; for Institutional Investors by Hyland Hunt, Ruthanne M.
Deutsch, Jonathan Gardner, Lauren A. Ormsbee, Cite as: 604 U. S.4 (2024) 5 Per Curiam Carol C.
Villegas, and Michael P. Canty; for Securities Law Scholars by John Paul Schnapper-Casteras and Andrew L.
Zivitz; and for Technology Industry Policy Advocates et al. by Elena B.
Roberts and Adam D.
Hollander. Reporter’s Note The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports.
The revised pagination makes available the official United States Reports citation in advance of publication.
The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or filed briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus.
Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation.
The following additional edits were made: None
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank, 604 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2024)…ormal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, [email protected], of any typographical or other formal errors. 4 Cite as: 604 U. S. 4 (2024) Per Curiam FACEBOOK, INC. v. AMALGAMATED BANK on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 23–980. Argued November 6, 2024—Decided November 22, 2024 Certiorari dismissed. Reported below:…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank, 604 U.S. 4 (U.S. 2024)