October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1406

How much proof links bad conduct to legal fees?

The parties dispute the standard for proving that misconduct caused specific legal costs.

Official caption
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Bergeron argued for a direct causation standard.

    Mr. Egbert argued for a causal link requirement.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Goodyear seeks a direct causation standard. Haeger wants a looser test. The Court must choose the rule.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 10, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Goodyear wants a direct causation standard for fee awards.

Haeger wants a looser standard for fee awards.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Goodyear argues direct causation limits inherent court authority.

Haeger argues the current standard is appropriate.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked why the plaintiff must prove every item.

Justice Kagan asked about the but-for test approach.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The standard determines how courts award legal fees for misconduct. It affects the cost of litigation for all parties.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON