Counsel, walk me through exactly what written demand Acme Management received that specifically sought Clean-Up Costs — and when it received that demand relative to when notice was given to the insurer. What document, on its face, said ‘pay Clean-Up Costs’?
Why might Judge Friendly ask this?Team notes
BackNext
Podium Mode: the report’s questions, one at a time. Answer out loud, mark each one, and keep notes your whole team sees on every device. More on Podium Mode →
One of 5,095 tagged questions — explore them all in the dashboardAs featured on SCOTUSblog: “Nine justices, nine styles” →
In the Justices’ own words
Every Justice-specific question in a Bartolus prep report rests on a pattern that recurs in that Justice’s arguments. The report shows each pattern with three of the Justice’s prior questions, verbatim, cited to the transcript.
BartolusOral argument prep
Justice Kagan
Recurring pattern
KAG-01Demand an administrable boundary across adjacent categories6 arguments (2017–2025)
Prior questions (verbatim)
“And I was wondering where in this scale that you’re using would discrimination on the basis of gender come. Would -- would that be a compelling state interest? So, for example, if there’s an agency that refuses to employ women, would the state have to contract with that agency?”
— Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (Nov. 4, 2020), Tr. 45:8
“So I guess somebody could make the same argument about computers. Well, it doesn’t really -- it’s separate from the religious instruction that might be carried out over those computers. Do you think that that’s the same, or is it different?”
— Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (Apr. 19, 2017), Tr. 7:18
“I mean, where would you put a tailor, a tailor who makes a wonderful suit of clothes? Where does that come in?”
— Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Dec. 5, 2017), Tr. 13:22
BartolusOral argument prep
Chief Justice Roberts
Recurring pattern
ROB-03Identify the fact change that would change the result3 arguments (2021–2025)
Prior questions (verbatim)
“What is the simplest thing that the Catholic Charities would have to do to qualify for the religious exemption in Wisconsin?”
— Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (Mar. 31, 2025), Tr. 81:6
“Are you saying that if they just had one chapel service every -- every day or -- or let’s just say that they take a religious perspective on -- on history, just that. Are they going to likely be qualified or likely -- unlikely?”
— Carson v. Makin (Dec. 8, 2021), Tr. 62:7
“It’s simply the coach going out to midfield, kneeling -- taking a knee, and that’s it? No dispute about who’s responsible for cutting off the negotiations. Take out the media stuff. Would the school have any problem in that case? Or would the case be just the same?”
— Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (Apr. 25, 2022), Tr. 61:17
John Greil is a law professor and practicing appellate attorney. He has argued at the federal circuit and state supreme court level, clerked at the federal appellate level, and holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School. He built Bartolus because he wanted a prep tool that could test empirical data against gut feelings — and couldn’t find one that did.
Feedback
Disagree with a tag? Found a bug? We’re listening.
Every note goes directly to the person who built this. We read them all.