Supreme Court Docket – 1999-2000 Term



Index | October | November | December | January | February | March | April

November 1999


Monday, November 1


Case:

    Leonard Portuondo, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility v. Ray Agard (No. 98-1170)
Subject:
    Habeas corpus, prosecutorial statements
Question:
    Whether it violates the Constitution for the prosecution to comment during closing argument that the defendant's opportunity to hear the testimony of all other witnesses before taking the stand enhanced his ability to fabricate testimony.
Decisions:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • New York State District Attorneys Association [PDF]
  • United States [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [PDF]


Case:

    Ernest C. Roe, Warden, Petitioner v. Lucio Flores-Ortega (No. 98-1441)
Subject:
    6th Amendment, appeal rights
Question:
    Whether trial counsel has a Sixth Amendment duty to file a notice of appeal following a guilty plea in the absence of a request by the defendant, particularly where the defendant has been advised of his appeal rights.
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • United States [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [PDF]

Tuesday, November 2


Case:
    Illinois, Petitioner v. William aka Sam Wardlow (No. 98-1036)
Subject:
    Police stop, search
Question:
    Whether a person's unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigatory stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States [PDF]
  • Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc. et al. [PDF]
  • National Association of Police Organizations et al. [PDF]
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney [PDF]
  • States of Ohio, Alabama, Colorado et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF]
  • NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund [PDF]
  • Rutherford Institute [PDF]


Case:

    New York, Petitioner v. Michael Hill (No. 98-1299)
Subject:
    Speedy Trial
Question:
    Article III(a) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers requires that a prisoner against whom a detainer has been lodged be brought to trial within 180 days after officials in the charging State have received the prisoner's request for disposition of the outstanding charges. The question presented is whether the defendant waives that time limit by expressly agreeing to a trial date beyond the expiration of the 180-day period.
Decisions: Briefs:

Wednesday, November 3


Case:
    Robert A. Beck, II, Petitioner v. Ronald M. Prupis, et al. (No. 98-1480)
Subject:
    RICO, whistleblower
Question:
    Whether a person has standing to assert a civil RICO conspiracy claim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1964(c) where:
  1. he does not have viable substantive claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)-(c);
  2. he was not injured by reason of "racketeering activity," as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(l); and
  3. the alleged overt act was the termination of his employment.
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent Belleza et al. [PDF]
  • Respondent Mezey [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Whistleblower Center [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Tort Reform Association et al. [PDF]
  • Washington Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]


Case:

    Mark Rotella, Petitioner v. Angela M. Wood, et al. (No. 98-896)
Subject:
    Racketeering, statute of limitations
Question:
    Does a RICO cause of action accrue upon discovery of the injury alone, or only after the plaintiff has discovered the injury that it results from a pattern of racketeering activity?
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondents [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Council of Life Insurance [PDF]
  • Washington Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]

Monday, November 8


Case:
    Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc. (No. 98-1109)
Subject:
    Nursing homes, Medicare/Medicaid regulations
Question:
    Whether 42 U.S.C. 405(h), incorporated into the Medicare Act by 42 U.S.C. 1395ii, permits skilled nursing facilities participating in the Medicare program to bring anticipatory, pre-enforcement lawsuits under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1346 (1994 & Supp. III 1997) to challenge the validity of Medicare program enforcement regulations and guidelines notwithstanding the Medicare Act's provision of an express, post-enforcement mechanism for administrative and judicial review.
Decisions: Briefs:


Case:

    Rohn F. Drye, Jr., et al., Petitioners v. United States (No. 98-1101)
Subject:
    Estate taxes
Question:
    Whether the interest of an heir in an estate constitutes "property" or a "right[ ] to property" to which the federal tax lien attaches under 26 U.S.C. 6321 even though the heir thereafter purports retroactively to disclaim the interest under state law.
Decisions:

Briefs:


Tuesday, November 9


Case:
    Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Harold Southworth, et al. (No. 98-1189)
Subject:
    1st Amendment, political speech
Question:
    Whether the First Amendment is offended by a policy or program under which public university students must pay mandatory fees that are used in part to support organizations that engage in political speech.
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioners [PDF]
  • Respondents [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF]
  • American Council on Education et al. [PDF]
  • AFL-CIO [PDF]
  • Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law [PDF]
  • Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Campus Center et al. [PDF]
  • National Education Association [PDF]
  • National Legal Aid Defenders Association et al. [PDF]
  • New York Public Interest Research Group [PDF]
  • States of New York et al. [PDF]
  • State of Oregon [PDF]
  • Student Press Law Center et al. [PDF]
  • United Council of University of Wisconsin Students, Inc. [PDF]
  • United States Student Association et al. [PDF]
  • University of California Student Association [PDF]
  • Wisconsin Student Public Interest Research Group et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Center for Law and Justice [PDF]
  • Atlantic Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • Christian Legal Society [PDF]
  • Family Research Institute [PDF]
  • First Freedoms Foundation [PDF]
  • Liberty Counsel [PDF]
  • National Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation [PDF]
  • National Smokers Alliance [PDF]
  • Owen Brennan Rounds et al. [PDF]
  • Pacific Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]
  • Rutherford Institute [PDF]
  • Washington Legal Foundation et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • Americans United for Separation of Church and State et al. [PDF]


Case:

    Salvador Martinez, Petitioner v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District (No. 98-7809)
Subject:
    Self-representation in a criminal appeal
Question:
    Does the right of self-representation under Faretta v. California extend to the first appeal as of right?
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Criminal Justice Foundation [PDF]

Wednesday, November 10


Case:
    Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al., Petitioners v. Charlie Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, et al. (No. 98-1464)

Subject:

    Commerce Clause, Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725)
Question:
    Whether the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. 2721-2725, contravenes constitutional principles of federalism.
Decisions: Briefs:


Case:

    City of Erie, et al., Petitioners v. Pap's A.M., tdba "Kandyland" (No. 98-1161)
Subject:
    Nude dancing ordinance, 1st Amendment, supremacy clause
Question:
    Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioners [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Liberties Institute et al. [PDF]
  • Brevard County, Florida [PDF]
  • Erie County Citizens Coalition Against Violent Pornography [PDF]
  • National Family Legal Foundation [PDF]
  • State of Kansas et al. [PDF]
  • Orange County, Florida [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • The Dante Project: Inferno et al. [PDF]
  • Déjà Vu Consulting, Inc. et al. [PDF]
  • Feminists for Free Expression [PDF]
  • First Amendment Lawyers Association [PDF]
  • Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression et al. [PDF]

Monday, November 29


Case:
    United States, Petitioner v. Abel Martinez-Salazar (No. 98-1255)
Subject:
    Jury selection, peremptory challenges
Question:
    Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
Decisions:

Briefs:


Case:

    Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Petitioner v. United States ex rel. Jonathan Stevens (No. 98-1828)
Subject:
    False Claims Act
Question:
  1. Is a State or state agency a "person" subject to suit under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729 et seq.?
  2. Is a qui tam suit against a State or state agency barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
  3. Does a private person have standing under Article III to litigate claims of fraud upon the government?
Decisions: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Respondent - Acquiescence (Petition) [PDF]

  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • United States [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]
  • United States - Supplement [PDF]
  • Respondent - Supplement [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. - Supplemental [PDF]
  • Alabama Medicaid Agency et al. [PDF]
  • American Clinical Laboratory Association et al. - Supplemental [PDF]
  • American Medical Association et al. - Supplemental [PDF]
  • American Petroleum Institute et al. - Supplemental [PDF]
  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. [PDF]
  • City of New York et al. [PDF]
  • Federation of American Health Systems - Supplemental [PDF]
  • FMC Corporation [PDF]
  • National Governors' Association et al. [PDF]
  • Orleans Parish School Board et al. [PDF]
  • Regents of the University of Minnesota [PDF]
  • State of New York et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Friends of the Earth - Supplemental [PDF]
  • National Employment Lawyers Association [PDF]
  • National Whistleblower Center [PDF]
  • Project on Government Oversight - Supplemental [PDF]
  • Taxpayers Against Fraud [PDF]
  • Taxpayers Against Fraud - Supplemental [PDF]

Tuesday, November 30


Case:
    United States, et al., Appellants v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (No. 98-1682)
Subject:
    First Amendment, cable, sexually explicit material
Question:
    Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Tit. V, 110 Stat. 136, requires that a cable television operator "providing sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel of its service primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" either "fully scramble or otherwise fully block the video and audio portion of such channel so that one not a subscriber * * * does not receive it," or, alternatively, not provide that programming "during the hours of the day (as determined by the [Federal Communication] Commission) when a significant number of children are likely to view it."

    The questions presented are:

      1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment.

      2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post-judgment motions under Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motions were pending.
Decisions: Briefs:


Case:

    Scott Leslie Carmell, Petitioner v. Texas (No. 98-7540)
Subject:
    Ex Post Facto
Question:
    Whether the application of a Texas statute at petitioner's trial, which was amended after his crime to permit a conviction of sexual assault to be supported by the uncorroborated testimony of a child-victim (and thus eliminated the prior requirement of corroboration or outcry within six months of the offense), violates the Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause in Art. I, § 10, Cl. 1.
Decisions: Briefs:

FindLaw Career Center

    Search for Law Jobs:

      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
Ads by FindLaw