X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are cases coming 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, DEC. 1 United States Postal Service v. Flamingo Industries (USA) Ltd., et al. No. 02-1290 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the U.S. Postal Service fits the definition of a “person” under the Sherman and Clayton acts, and can therefore be sued for antitrust violations. For petitioner: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Harold Krent, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Chicago. Shakur Muhammad v. Mark Close No. 02-9065 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a prison inmate who files a suit challenging prison conditions, rather than the fact of his imprisonment or duration of his confinement, must first successfully challenge his conviction in state court before recovering damages in a Section 1983 lawsuit. For petitioner: Corinne Beckwith, Public Defender Service, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Thomas Casey, Michigan solicitor general, Lansing, Mich. TUESDAY, DEC. 2 Gary Locke, Governor of Washington, et al. v. Joshua Davey No. 02-1315 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the free exercise clause of the First Amendment requires Washington state to offer state scholarship money to theology majors, when the state constitution prohibits the expenditure of public funds for religious instruction and the state provides college scholarships for secular instruction. For petitioner: Narda Pierce, Washington solicitor general, Olympia, Wash. For respondent: Jay Sekulow, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, D.C.; and Theodore Olson, U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Lee M. Till, et ux. v. SCS Credit Corp. No. 02-1016 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Question presented: What is the proper method to calculate the interest rate that a Chapter 13 debtor pays to a creditor for collateral under the Chapter 13 “cramdown” provision? The provision allows debtors to retain collateral over the objection of a creditor, if the debtor repays the creditor the total present value of the collateral. For petitioner: Rebecca Harper, UAW-Daimler Chrysler Legal Services Plan, Marion, Ind.; and David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: G. Eric Brunstad Jr., Bingham McCutchen, Hartford, Conn. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 3 Office of Independent Counsel v. Allan J. Favish No. 02-954 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Office of Independent Counsel properly withheld photographs relating to the death of former Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, under the Freedom of Information Act exemption that protects “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” For petitioner: Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; and James Hamilton, Swidler Berlin Shereff Friedman, Washington, D.C. (for respondents Sheila Foster Anthony and Lisa Foster Moody in support of petitioner). For respondent: Allan Favish, Santa Clarita, Calif. Buck Doe, et al. v. Elaine L. Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor No. 02-1377 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether an individual who proves that the disclosure of Social Security numbers violated the Privacy Act � but cannot prove actual damages � is entitled to the minimum $1,000 in statutory damages. For petitioner: Jack Campbell IV, Jones Day, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. MONDAY, DEC. 8 George H. Baldwin v. Michael Reese No. 02-964 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: In the process of exhausting all available state court remedies prior to seeking federal habeas relief, has a prisoner adequately alerted the state courts to the federal nature of his claim when he neither cites a specific provision of the U.S. Constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis? For petitioner: Hardy Myers, Oregon attorney general, Salem, Ore. For respondent: Dennis Balske, Law Office of Dennis Balske, Portland, Ore. Delma Banks Jr. v. Janie Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice No. 02-8286 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Banks, who has been on Texas death row for 23 years, seeks consideration of whether the appeals court adequately considered numerous claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel in the handling of his one-day murder trial. Banks claims prosecutors suppressed evidence that would have enabled his lawyers to impeach the credibility of key witnesses. For petitioner: George Kendall, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, New York. For respondent: Gena Bunn, assistant Texas attorney general, Austin, Texas. TUESDAY, DEC. 9 United States v. Samuel F. Patane No. 02-1183 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Question presented: Whether failure to give a suspect Miranda warnings prohibits not only the admission of suspect’s statements at trial, but also admission of physical evidence � in this case a pistol � that police found as a result of the statements. For petitioner: Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Jill Wichlens, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Denver. State of Missouri v. Patrice Seibert No. 02-1371 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Question presented: When police intentionally fail to provide Miranda warnings before a suspect talks, can they cure the defect by giving Miranda warnings before a second interview, and then using the second interview at trial? For petitioner: Karen Mitchell, chief deputy Missouri attorney general, Jefferson City, Mo.; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Amy Bartholomew, assistant public defender, Columbia, Mo. WEDNESDAY, DEC. 10 John J. Fellers v. United States No. 02-6320 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: When police arrest an individual after an indictment and interview him without giving Miranda warnings and without presence of counsel, can a second interview, preceded by a waiver of Miranda rights, be admitted when the questioning took place again without counsel present? For petitioner: Seth Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Richard Vieth, et al. v. Robert C. Jubelirer, President of the Pennsylvania Senate, et al. No. 02-1580 Certiorari to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Question presented: Whether a state redistricting plan drawn with the partisan purpose of helping one political party over another can be challenged on equal protection clause or other constitutional grounds. For petitioner: Paul Smith, Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. For respondents: John Krill Jr., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Harrisburg, Pa.; and J. Bart DeLone, senior deputy attorney general, Harrisburg, Pa.

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.