X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are cases before the Supreme Court in the coming weeks and the lawyers who will argue them. “Docket Watch” appears at the beginning of each two-week argument cycle when the high court hears cases. MONDAY, APRIL 21 Jones v. Vincent No. 02-524 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether the trial court violated the double jeopardy clause by first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first-degree murder and then withdrawing the grant outside the presence of the jury; whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. For petitioner: Arthur Busch, prosecuting attorney for Genesee County, Flint, Mich.; and Jeffrey Lamken, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: David Moran, state appellate defender office, Detroit. Desert Palace Inc. v. Costa No. 02-679 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act imposes on plaintiffs a higher evidentiary standard for so-called mixed motive discrimination claims. For petitioner: Mark Ricciardi, Fisher & Phillips, Las Vegas; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Robert Peccole, Peccole & Peccole, Las Vegas. TUESDAY, APRIL 22 Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, et al. No. 02-634 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. Question presented: Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, classwide arbitration is permissible when the arbitration agreement is silent regarding class actions. For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Cornelia Pillard, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Hillside Dairy, et al. v. Lyons, et al. Ponderosa Dairy, et al. v. Lyons, et al. Nos. 01-950 and 01-1018 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Whether the Federal Agriculture Reform and Improvement Act creates an exemption to the dormant commerce clause for California’s interstate regulation of the dairy industry; whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an “unmistakably clear” congressional exemption to the dormant commerce clause; and whether California’s milk pooling plan violates the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution. For petitioners: Roy Englert Jr., Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, Washington, D.C.; and Barbara McDowell, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Mark Urban, deputy attorney general, Sacramento, Calif. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23 American Insurance Association, et al. v. Garamendi No. 02-722 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether California’s Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act can constitutionally require an insurance company licensed to do business in California to disclose information related to an insurance claim even though that information may be in the hands of a related entity located in a foreign country. For petitioners: Kenneth Geller, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, D.C.; and Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Frank Kaplan, Alschuler, Grossman, Stein & Kahan, Santa Monica, Calif. Nike Inc., et al. v. Kasky No. 02-575 Certiorari to the California Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether the First Amendment protects a corporation from liability for factual inaccuracies in letters and statements addressed to the general public in response to allegations of misconduct on the part of the corporation. For petitioners: Laurence Tribe, Cambridge, Mass.; and Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Paul Hoeber, Bushnell, Caplan & Fielding, San Francisco. MONDAY, APRIL 28 Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord No. 02-469 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act requires a plan administrator to accept a treating physician’s opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record. For petitioner: Lee Paterson, Winston & Strawn, Los Angeles. For respondent: Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, Calif. Entergy Louisiana Inc. v. Louisiana Public Service Commission, et al. No. 02-299 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana. Question presented: Whether federal law pre-empts the Louisiana Public Service Commission from determining the prudence of a multistate electric power system’s payment calculations governed by a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rate schedule. For petitioner: David Carpenter, Chicago. For respondents: Michael Fontham, Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann, New Orleans. TUESDAY, APRIL 29 Georgia v. Ashcroft, et al. No. 02-182 Certiorari to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Question presented: Whether a Georgia state Senate redistricting plan has the purpose and/or effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. For petitioner: David Walbert, Parks Chesin & Walbert, Atlanta. For respondents: Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa, et al. No. 02-695 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Iowa. Question presented: Whether legislation that increased taxes for gambling facilities at racetracks but not those on riverboats violates the equal protection clause. For petitioner: Thomas Miller, attorney general of Iowa. For respondents: Mark McCormick, Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn, Des Moines. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30 Virginia v. Keven Lamont Hicks No. 02-371 Certiorari to the Virginia Supreme Court. Questions presented: Whether a housing authority’s trespass policy violates the First Amendment; whether defendant may challenge that policy as overbroad on First Amendment grounds even though his offense did not involve any expressive conduct and his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the policy he challenges as overbroad. For petitioner: William Henry Hurd, state solicitor, Richmond, Va. For respondent: Steven Benjamin, Benjamin & DesPortes, Richmond, Va. Beneficial National Bank, et al. v. Anderson, et al. No. 02-306 Certiorari to the U.S.Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a usury claim against a national bank, even if ostensibly brought under state law, necessarily arises under the National Bank Act, so as to permit a federal court to exercise removal jurisdiction under the doctrine of complete pre-emption. For petitioners: Brian Clark, Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, Birmingham, Ala. For respondents: Seth Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.