Supreme Court Docket



Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

February 2003

[Download February 2003 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket]

Monday, February 24


Pacificare Health Systems v. Jeffrey Book, et al.
No. 02-215

Subject:

Question:
    Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff’s RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioners (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioners - Appendix (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • National Association of Manufacturers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondents
  • National Association of Consumer Advocates (Merits) [PDF]
  • Public Citizen, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
  • Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF]


Franchise Tax Board of California v. Gilbert Hyatt, et al.
No. 02-42

Subject:

    State Rights, Conflict of Laws, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Income Tax, Federalism
Question:
    Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of art. IV, sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California law (Government Code section 860.2) in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud alleged to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent Hyatt (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • States of Oregon, Alaska, et al. (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

  • National Governors Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  • States of Florida, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondents
  • Pacific Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]


Tuesday, February 25


Joseph Massaro v. United States
No. 01-1559

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the court of appeals correctly affirmed the denial of petitioner's motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel because petitioner did not demonstrate cause and prejudice for his failure to raise that claim on direct appeal of his conviction.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]


Clackamas Gastroenterology v. Deborah Wells
No. 01-1435

Subject:

Question:
    Whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if a medical clinic's physician-shareholders should be counted as "employees" for the purpose of determining if the clinic is a "covered entity" subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF]
  • Respondent (Opposition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [RTF]


Wednesday, February 26


Joseph C. Roell, et al. v. Jon Michael Withrow
No. 02-69

Subject:

    Federal Trials, Magistrate Judges, Civil Procedure
Question:
    When a district court refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant did not expressly consent?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]


Dow Chemical Company, et al. v. Daniel Stephenson, et al.
No. 02-271

Subject:

    Class Actions, Adequacy of Representation, Civil Procedure
Question:
  1. Whether absent class members are precluded from relitigating the issue of adequacy of representation through a collateral attack on a class settlement, after class members had a full opportunity to opt out, object, and appeal, and after both the trial court and the court of appeals, in the course of approving the settlement, expressly determined that the class representatives adequately represented the entire class.

  2. Whether, if collateral attack is permissible, the "adequacy of representation" is an issue that is to be properly determined as of the time of the original litigation or in light of events and changes in the law occurring years after the settlement has becomes final and all of the settlement proceeds have been disbursed.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondents (Merits) [PDF]

 

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
Ads by FindLaw