X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
WASHINGTON — Below are cases coming before the Supreme Court this week and next and the lawyers who will argue them. Monday, Jan. 12 United States v. Abel C. Galletti, et al. No. 02-1389 Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether government claims for unpaid unemployment taxes by a bankrupt partnership should also separately assess the individual liability of partnership members. For petitioner: Kent Jones, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: David Haberbush, Haberbush Feinberg, Long Beach. Jeremiah W. ( Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri v. Missouri Municipal League, et al. Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Missouri Municipal League, et al. Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., fka Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Missouri Municipal League, et al. Nos. 02-1238, 02-1386, 02-1405 Certiorari to the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prevents states from passing laws that interfere with interstate or intrastate telecommunications services, pre-empts a Missouri law barring municipalities from providing telecommunications service to the public. For petitioner: For petitioner United States: James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For petitioner Nixon: Ronald Molteni, assistant attorney general, Office of the Missouri Attorney General, Jefferson City, Mo. For respondents: David Strauss, University of Chicago Law School, Chicago. Tuesday, Jan. 13 State of Tennessee v. George Lane, et al. No. 02-1667 Certiorari to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether Congress overstepped its authority in passing Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which exposes states to private lawsuits for money damages. The law requires states to make their facilities and services, in this case courthouses, accessible to the disabled. Tennessee argues the 11th Amendment protects it from the suit. For petitioner: Michael Moore, solicitor general, Office of the Tennessee Attorney General, Nashville, Tenn. For respondents Lane and Jones: William Brown, William Brown & Associates, Cleveland, Tenn. For respondent United States: Paul Clement, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Raymond B. Yates, M.D., etc. v. William T. Henton, Trustee No. 02-458 Certiorari to the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether a business owner is prevented from enjoying the protections from creditors due a “participant” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). For petitioner: James Holifield Jr., Kennerly, Montgomery & Finley, Knoxville, Tenn.; and Matthew Roberts, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: C. Mark Troutman, Troutman & Troutman, LaFollette, Tenn. Wednesday, Jan. 14 Engine Manufacturers Association, et al. v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, et al. No. 02-1343 Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether local government rules meant to encourage the purchase of environmentally sound motor vehicle fleets are pre-empted by the federal Clean Air Act. For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.; and Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Seth Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C. South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, et al. No. 02-626 Certiorari to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the pumping of water by a Florida water management agency constitutes an “addition” of pollution that triggers a licensing procedure under the Clean Water Act, when the pump does not add pollutants to the water but shifts polluted water from a residential area to a conservation area in the Florida Everglades. For petitioner: Timothy Bishop, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Chicago; and Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Dexter Lehtinen, Lehtinen Vargas & Riedi, Miami, Fla. Tuesday, Jan. 20 BedRoc Limited LLC, et al. v. United States, et al. No. 02-1593 Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether common materials such as sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” that can be retained by the United States under the Pittman Act of 1919, regardless of whether the materials had economic value at time of the patent. For petitioner: R. Timothy McCrum, Crowell & Moring Washington, D.C. For respondent: Thomas Sansonetti, assistant attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. J. Elliott Hibbs, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al. No. 02-1809 Certiorari to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Tax Injunction Act requires federal courts to dismiss constitutional challenges to state tax credits that impact a state’s administration of its tax system. At issue is Arizona tax credits on donations to private primary and secondary schools, many of which are religious. For petitioner: Samuel Goddard, attorney general, Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix; and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Marvin Cohen, Sacks Tierney, Scottsdale, Ariz.

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.