Source: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__February_26_2019?Page=0
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:11:36+00:00

Document:
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert. Jake Heller joined us to discuss Casetext’s approach to public access to legal knowledge and how Casetext supports litigators and journalists. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the law.
We're delighted to have a guest today: Jake Heller of Casetext, the blog's new sponsor.
We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 am. As is almost always the case, we don't know which opinions we are getting or how many.
Hey everyone, I’m Jake Heller, the CEO and co-founder of Casetext. I’m stoked to be here and to support SCOTUSblog!
There are still four opinions left from October: Gundy v. United States, Madison v. Alabama, Nielsen v. Preap, and Air & Liquid Systems v. DeVries.
There are too many November cases outstanding to make any predictions. There have only been two decided: Culbertson v. Berryhill and Henry Schein v. Archer & White Sales.
And last week the Court decided two December cases: Timbs v. Indiana and Dawson v. Steager.
The Hyatt v. Franchise Tax Bd case was heard by the Court for the 3rd time in January. Do you know of any other cases that have been before the Court on 3 occasions? Just curious..
Is February considered in the October term?
Any reason why there's two opinion days this week rather than release them all on one day?
It's our pleasure. Like SCOTUSblog, we believe access to the law, and understanding it, should be made more public.
Jake, Thank You for supporting SCOTUSblog.
It's pretty quiet here in the press room today, even though we are expecting opinions. Today is not one of the higher-profile argument days, and there's a lot of competing news, including across the street at the Capitol, that is drawing away some of the reporters who might otherwise be here.
One of my colleagues here in the press room also reports that people are already lined up outside for tomorrow's argument in the Bladensburg cross case. Today is sort of typical late February weather here in DC -- cold but not freezing -- so it's going to be a long day and night for those folks.
We just heard the five-minute buzzer here in the press room.
We have just one box today in the press room.
For the new or new-ish here, the Public Information Office brings out the closed boxes of opinions before they are released. The number of boxes is a rough proxy for the number of opinions that we can expect. So it's not likely to be a day with a large number of opinions.
Once the opinion or opinions are released, I am headed upstairs to cover the oral argument in United States v. Haymond, so I will say a very quick goodbye, but hopefully Jake and others will stick around to answer questions or comments.
Is it cheating to be a part of this while also having the SCt opinions page open in a separate tab?
So one box means one opinion?
Okay, headed in to wait for opinions. Back shortly.
The good news is that you can sign up for a free trial, and when it expires, you can still look up free opinions on Casetext forever. The only thing you really need to pay for on Casetext is the advanced technology, like CARA, where litigators only need to drag-and-drop a litigation document, and your search results will be tailored to the facts, legal issues, jurisdiction, party, etc., of the matter you’re working on.
It's too bad that you have to pay for CaseText. That makes it more difficult to be able to read the underlying opinions.
There’s opinions tomorrow as well correct? Are we going to start seeing opinion days twice a week going forward now?
We have just one opinion today, in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert. It is by Sotomayor and it is unanimous.
The Ninth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
The Supreme Court holds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) is not subject to equitable tolling.
Okay, I am headed upstairs. Have a great day, everyone, and hope to see you here tomorrow.
holding that difficulties with calculating class-wide damages will not defeat class certification, but only if "a valid method has been proposed for calculating those damages"
Are we going to see the Voting Relationships on the Statistics page updated for this term? Thanks!
I got a question about the panel in the Lambert opinion. You can usually find it towards the top of the opinion. In this case, the Ninth Circuit judges were: Richard A. Paez, Marsha S. Berzon, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. The Ninth Circuit opinion was written by Paez.
What do you guys have to say about First Mondays going on indefinite hiatus? It is a real shame.
Any chance we see Sturgeon v. Frost this week?
Likely, these are cases that may be affected by today's ruling (either upheld or reversed).
Hi all, that's all for today! Thank you for joining us. We will be back tomorrow for more opinions. Maybe Sturgeon? That's what at least one of you seems to want. We'll also be joined by Casetext's Pablo Arredondo. Up today on the blog we'll have Howard Wasserman's analysis of today's opinion, and Amy Howe's analysis of argument in Haymond and Fiona Doherty's analysis of argument in Mont. Hope you all have a great day!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.