Jonathan D. Hacker
Private practice · Washington, D.C. · Attorney · argued OT 2010–2019
6arguments since OT 2010
1–5record (side argued for), 17%
49Justice remarks faced per argument (open period; all advocates 47)
71%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 | Ge Energy Power Conversion France Sas v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 46 | 62% |
| OT 2015 | Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Manning | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 65 | 78% |
| OT 2014 | Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 47 | 63% |
| OT 2014 | Tibble v. Edison International | Respondent | Attorney | Lost | 36 | 65% |
| OT 2011 | Gloria Gail Kurns, Executrix of the Estate of George M. Corson, Deceased et al. v. Railroad Friction Products Corporation et al. | Respondent | Attorney | Won | 36 | 73% |
| OT 2010 | Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al. v. James Siracusano et al. | Petitioner | Attorney | Lost | 61 | 84% |
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).