Danielle Spinelli
Private practice · Washington, D.C. · Attorney · argued OT 2010–2019
6arguments since OT 2010
4–1record (side argued for), 80%
44Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
80%of those remarks read as doubt by Jev (all advocates 63%)
Arguments by term
Side wonSide lostPending / unclear
Arguments
| Term | Case | Side | Role | Result | Remarks faced | Doubt (Jev) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OT 2019 | No. 18-217 | Respondent | Attorney | – | 72 | – |
| OT 2018 | Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 36 | – |
| OT 2016 | Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 31 | 67% |
| OT 2014 | Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 46 | – |
| OT 2013 | Clark v. Rameker | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 39 | 83% |
| OT 2010 | United States v. Tohono O'odham Nation | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 39 | 90% |
Names, roles and sides from each transcript's list of appearances; results from the Supreme Court Database (did the side argued for win). Remarks faced: Justice turns of five words or more right after this advocate spoke, open period only. Doubt: TypeSafe's Jev reading of those remarks (an experiment, available where our research run covered the case).