FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ET AL.

v.

COOPER

Citator

Cited By

• Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (U.S. 2012)
  …ither live speech or written documents into a familiar language, so long as. interpretation of the items is necessary to the litigation.” Id., at 1221-1222. Because there is a split among the Courts of Appeals on this issue,1 we granted certiorari. 564 U. S. 1066 (2011). HH f — < A Although the taxation of costs was not allowed at common law, it was the practice of federal courts in the early years to award costs in the same manner as the courts of the relevant forum State. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v.…
• Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463 (U.S. 2012)
  …d authority to raise timeliness on its own motion. Id., at 337, n. 2. It further ruled that the State had not taken that issue off the table by declining to interpose a statute of limitations defense in the District Court. Ibid. We granted review, 564 U. S. 1066 (2011), to resolve two issues: first, whether a court of appeals has the authority to address the timeliness of a habeas petition on the court’s own initiative;2 second, assuming a court of appeals has such authority, whether the State’s representat…
• Roberts v. Sea-Land Servs., Inc., 566 U.S. 93 (U.S. 2012)
  …in relevant part, holding that an employee “is ‘newly awarded compensation’ within the meaning of [§ 906(c)] when he first becomes entitled to compensation.” Roberts v. Director, OWCP, 625 P. 3d 1204, 1208 (2010) (per curiam). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1066 (2011), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits with respect to the time when a beneficiary is “newly awarded compensation,” and now affirm.4 [*100] II Roberts contends that “awarded compensation” means “awarded compensation in a formal order.” Se…