E. Joshua Rosenkranz
Private practice · New York, N.Y. · Attorney · argued OT 2010–2025
17arguments since OT 2010
8–7record (side argued for), 53%
33Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
63%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 2025 | Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 62 | 69% |
| OT 2023 | Smith v. Spizzirri | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 25 | 73% |
| OT 2021 | Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 27 | 45% |
| OT 2020 | Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 15 | 50% |
| OT 2018 | Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 34 | 72% |
| OT 2017 | United States v. Microsoft Corp. | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 51 | 67% |
| OT 2017 | Sessions v. Dimaya | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 40 | 44% |
| OT 2016 | Cty. of Los Angeles v. Mendez | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 29 | 68% |
| OT 2016 | No. 15-1498 | Respondent | Attorney | – | 29 | – |
| OT 2016 | Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 16 | 72% |
| OT 2015 | Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 35 | – |
| OT 2015 | Sheriff v. Gillie | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 0 | – |
| OT 2014 | City of Los Angeles, California v. Patel | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 48 | 65% |
| OT 2014 | No. 13-1075 | Respondent | Attorney | – | 18 | – |
| OT 2012 | Supap Kirtsaeng, Dba BLUECHRISTINE99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 35 | 62% |
| OT 2010 | Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Michael A. Carrigan | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 50 | 69% |
| OT 2010 | Ricky D Fox v. Judy Ann Vice, As Executrix of the Estate of Vice et al. | Petitioner | Attorney | Won | 45 | 60% |
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).