Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Maryland:
Kathryn Grill Graeff
Asst. State Attorney General
Baltimore, MD
For Respondent Blake:
Kenneth W. Ravenell
Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow,
Gilden & Ravenvell
Baltimore, MD
|
|
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV), et al.
No. 04-1084
Subject:
Question:
Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.,
requires the government to permit the importation, distribution, possession, and use of a
Schedule I hallucinogenic controlled substance, where Congress has found that the
substance has a high potential for abuse, it is unsafe for use even under medical
supervision, and its importation and distribution would violate an international treaty.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 2
Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., dba Conagra Refrigerated Foods
No. 04-597
Subject:
Sufficiency of Evidence, Motions for Judgment
Question:
Whether, and to what extent, a court of appeals may review the sufficiency
of evidence supporting a civil jury verdict where the party requesting review
made a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before submission of the case to the jury,
but neither renewed that motion under Rule 50(b) after the jury's verdict,
nor moved for a new trial under Rule 59?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
James Lockhart v. United States, et al.
No. 04-881
Subject:
Social Security Act, Debt Collection Improvement Act, Higher Education Act, Student Loans
Question:
Do the Social Security Act and the Debt Collection Improvement Act bar the
United States from withholding social security benefits to collect student loan
debt that has been outstanding for more than ten years, as the Eighth Circuit
has held, or does the Higher Education Act eliminate any such bar, as the
Ninth Circuit held below?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Monday, November 7
Barbara Dolan v. United States Postal Service, et al.
No. 04-848
Subject:
Jursidiction, Supreme Court Supervisory Power, Federal Tort Claims Act
Question:
Does not this case—which involved a determination of whether the
district court had jurisdiction over the claim of plaintiff when her injury
was caused by the negligent placement of mail at the place of delivery
—call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power where there is a
dispute between the circuits of the Court of Appeals as to whether the
exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U .S.C. § 2680 (b) barred
this lawsuit and where the Third Circuit narrowly construed the Act?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Dolan:
James R. Radmore
Philadelphia, PA
For Respondents United States Postal Service, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 8
Gerald T. Martin, et ux. v. Franklin Capital Corporation, et al.
No. 04-1140
Subject:
Removal Jurisdiction, Remand to State Court, Fees and Expenses
Question:
What legal standard governs the decision whether to award fees and
expenses under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) upon remanding a removed case to
state court?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Georgia v. Scott Fitz Randolph
No. 04-1067
Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Consent to Search Shared Premises, Criminal Law
Question:
Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the conflict among federal and
state courts on whether an occupant may give law enforcement valid consent
to search the common areas of the premises shared with another, even
though the other occupant is present and objects to the search?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Georgia:
Paula K. Smith
Senior Ass't Attorney General
Atlanta, GA
For Respondent Randolph:
Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 9
United States v. Georgia, et al.
No. 04-1203
Goodman v. Georgia, et al.
No. 04-1236
Subject:
Questions:
United States v. Georgia, et al., No. 04-1203
Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
12131 to 12165, is a proper exercise of Congress's power under Section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison
systems.
Tony Goodman v. Georgia, et al., No. 04-1236
Whether, and to what extent, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities challenging discrimination by state-operated
prisons, a question on which the courts of appeals are in conflict.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Mike Evans, Acting Warden v. Reginald Chavis
No. 04-721
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Unreasonable Delay, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Criminal Law
Question:
Did the Ninth Circuit contravene this Court's decision in Carey v. Saffold
when it held that a prisoner who delayed more than three years before filing
a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court did not "unreasonably"
delay in filing the petition -- and therefore was entitled to tolling during that
entire period -- because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the
petition without comment or citation, which the Ninth Circuit construes as a
denial "on the merits"?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Monday, November 28
Richard Will, et al. v. Susan Hallock, et al.
No. 04-1332
Subject:
Questions:
- Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b)
dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the
FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U .S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by
the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA
claim.
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the District Court's order denying
a motion to dismiss under the FTCA's judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. §2676?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Wachovia Bank, National Association v. Daniel G. Schmidt, III, et al.
No. 04-1186
Subject:
Diversity Jurisdiction, National Banking Association, Citizenship, "Located"
Questions:
- Whether, for purposes of federal diversity
jurisdiction, a national banking association is "located" in, and thus deemed
to be a citizen of, every state in which the association maintains a branch, as
held by the court below, or instead has a more limited citizenship, as held by
three other courts of appeals.
- Whether the word "located," as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1348, is ambiguous.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Tuesday, November 29
Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
No. 04-1329
Subject:
Question:
Whether, in an action under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, alleging
that the defendant engaged in unlawful tying by conditioning a patent license on
the licensee's purchase of a non-patented good, the plaintiff must prove as part of
its affirmative case that the defendant possessed market power in the relevant
market for the tying product, or market power instead is presumed based solely on
the existence of the patent on the tying product.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna, et al.
No. 04-1264
Subject:
Federal Arbitration Act, Contracts
Question:
Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred by holding, consistent with the
Alabama Supreme Court but in direct conflict with six federal courts of
appeals, that the Federal Arbitration Act allows a party to avoid arbitration by
claiming that the underlying contract containing an arbitration clause (but
not the arbitration clause itself) is void for illegality.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc:
Christopher Landau
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents Cardegna, et al.:
F. Paul Bland
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C.
Washington, DC
|
|
|
Wednesday, November 30
Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1244
Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women, Inc., et al.
No. 04-1352
Subject:
Questions:
Scheidler v. NOW, Inc., et al., No. 04-1244
- Whether the Seventh Circuit, on remand, disregarded this Court's mandate
by holding that "all" of the predicate acts supporting the jury’s finding of a
RICO violation were not reversed, that the "judgment that petitioners
violated RICO" was not necessarily reversed, and that the "injunction issued
by the District Court" might not need to be vacated.
- Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in conflict with decisions of the
Sixth and Ninth Circuits, that the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), can be
read to punish acts or threats of physical violence against "any person or
property" in a manner that "in any way or degree * * * affects commerce,"
even if such acts or threats of violence are wholly unconnected to either
extortion or robbery.
- Whether this Court should again grant certiorari to resolve the deep and
important intercircuit conflict over whether injunctive relief is available in a
private civil action for treble damages brought under RICO, 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c).
Operation Rescue v. NOW, Inc., et al., No. 04-1352
- Does the Seventh Circuit's defiance of this Court's mandate merit summary
reversal?
- Did the Seventh Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Ninth Circuit, and in
conflict with the official position of the Department of Justice, that private
civil litigants may obtain injunctive relief under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute?
- Did the Seventh Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Sixth and Ninth
Circuits, and in conflict with the official position of the Department of Justice,
that the federal Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, may plausibly be construed to
prohibit, without any connection to robbery or extortion, any act or threat of
"physical violence to any person or property" that "in any way or degree. ..
affects commerce"?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners Scheidler, et al.:
Alan Edward Untereiner
Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, LLP
Washington, DC
For Petitioner Operation Rescue:
Jay Alan Sekulow
American Center for Law & Justice
Washington, DC
For Respondents NOW, Inc., et al.:
Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
|
|
Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.
No. 04-1144
Subject:
Questions:
- Did the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals apply the correct
standard in a facial challenge to a statute regulating abortion when it ruled
that the undue burden standard cited in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v.
Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876-77 (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914,
921 (2000) applied rather than the "no set of circumstances" standard set
forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)?
- Whether the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act,
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132:24-28 (2003) preserves the health and life of the
minor through the Act's judicial bypass mechanism and/or other state
statutes.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
Amicus - Supporting Petitioner
Amicus - Supporting Respondents
|
|
that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
