US Supreme Court grants cert. in 14 cases
Via Scotusblog:
Title: Kentucky v. King
Issue(s): Under what circumstances can lawful police action impermissibly "create" exigent circumstances that preclude warrantless entry?
Opinion below (Supreme Court of Kentucky)
Title: United States v. Tinklenberg
Issue(s): Whether the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and its disposition is automatically excluded from the deadline for commencing trial under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, or is instead excluded only if the motion actually causes a postponement, or the expectation of a postponement, of the trial. (Kagan, J., recused.)
Title: Freeman v. United States
Issue(s): federal sentencing guidelines for crack offenders for cases in which the defendant entered a guilty plea.
Title: Bullcoming v. New Mexico
Issue(s): Whether admission of a blood alcohol report, through the testimony of a qualified analyst who did not conduct and observe the testing, is admissible under Crawford. v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
Title: Sykes v. United States
Issue(s): Whether a prior conviction for resisting law enforcement is a violent felony for the ACCA sentencing enhancment.
Title: Smith v. Bayer Corp.
Issues: Collateral estoppel, whether issues are identical, jurisdiction over absent members of a class
Title: Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County
Issue(s): Whether, in the absence of a private right of action to enforce a statute, federal courts have the federal common law authority to confer a private right of action simply because the statutory requirement sought to be enforced is embodied in a contract. (Kagan, J., recused.)
Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief for the US Chamber of Commerce
- Amicus brief for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- Petitioners' reply
Title: Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.
Issue(s): Whether Exemption 7(C) of the Freedom of Information Act -- which exempts from mandatory disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes when such disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of "personal privacy" - protects the "privacy" of corporate entities. (Kagan, J., recused.)
- Opinion below (3d Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition for AT&T
- Amicus brief of Public Citizen et al.
- Brief of respondent Comptel in support of petition
- Petitioners' reply
The two cases below are consolidated.
Title: General Dynamics Corp. v. United States
Issue(s): Whether the government can maintain its claim against a party when it invokes the state-secrets privilege to completely deny that party a defense to the claim.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce
- Amicus brief for the National Defense Industrial Association
Title: The Boeing Company v. United States
Issue(s): Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment permits the government to maintain a claim while simultaneously asserting the state-secrets privilege to bar presentation of a prima facie valid defense to that claim.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce
- Amicus brief for the National Defense Industrial Association
Title: J. McIntyre Machinery v. Nicastro
Docket: 09-1343
Issue(s): May a state exercise in personam jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer solely because the manufacturer targets the US market and the product is purchased by a consumer in the forum state.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of New Jersey)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
Title: Goodyear v. Brown
Issue(s): Whether a foreign corporation is subject to general personal jurisdiction, on causes of action not arising out of or related to any contacts between it and the forum state, merely because other entities distribute in the forum state products placed in the stream of commerce by the defendant.
- Opinion below (Court of Appeals of North Carolina)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America
- Petitioners' reply
Title: Stern v. Marshall
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) contravenes congressional intent; (2) whether Congress may authorize core jurisdiction over debtors' compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit contravened Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
Opinion below (9th Circuit)
Title: Schindler Elevator Corp. v. US ex rel. Kirk
Issue(s): Whether a federal agency's response to a Freedom of Information Act request is a "report . . . or investigation" within the meaning of the False Claims Act public disclosure bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4). (Kagan, J., recused.)
Categories
US Supreme Court0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: US Supreme Court grants cert. in 14 cases.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ranchocabron.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/284
Leave a comment