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, OCT. 4State of Kansas v. State of Colorado No. 105, Original Certioriari to the U.S. Supreme Court. Questions presented: In a dispute over the Arkansas Compact, should the Court appoint a “river master” to resolve computer modeling issues that may arise after a decree is issued? Is Kansas entitled to prejudgment interest, accruing from 1985 forward, for damages resulting from Compact violations from 1950 to 1985? For plaintiff: John Draper, Montgomery & Andrews, Santa Fe, N.M. For Colorad David W. Robbins, Hill & Robbins, Denver. For the United States: James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, et al. v. John C. Tesmer, et al. No. 03-407 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Questions presented: Does the 14th Amendment guarantee a right to an appointed appellate attorney in a discretionary first appeal of an indigent criminal defendant convicted by a guilty plea? Do attorneys have third-party standing on behalf of potential future indigent criminal defendants to make a constitutional challenge to a state statute prohibiting appointment of appellate counsel in discretionary first appeals following convictions by guilty pleas? For petitioners: Thomas Casey, solicitor general, Lansing, Mich. For respondents: David Moran, Wayne State University Law School, Detroit. United States v. Freddie J. Booker No. 04-104 • United States v. Ducan Fanfan No. 04-105 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, respectively. Questions presented: Whether the Sixth Amendment is violated by the imposition of an enhanced sentence under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines based on the sentencing judge’s determination of a fact (other than a prior conviction) that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. If the answer to this first question is yes in a case in which the guidelines would require the court to find a sentence-enhancing fact, are the sentencing guidelines as a whole inapplicable, as a matter of severability analysis? For petitioners: Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Booker: T. Christopher Kelly, Kelly & Habermehl, Madison,Wis. For respondent Fanfan: Rosemary Scapicchio, Law Offices of Rosemary Curran Scapicchio, Boston. TUESDAY, OCT. 5KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression Inc., et al. No. 03-409 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Does the classic fair use defense to trademark infringement require the party asserting the defense to demonstrate an absence of likelihood of confusion, or is fair use an absolute defense, irrespective of whether or not confusion may result? For petitioners: Michael Machat, Law Office of Michael Machat, Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Beth Brinkmann, Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C. • Koons Buick Pontiac GMC Inc. v. Bradley Nigh No. 03-377 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the $1,000 statutory limit originally adopted in 1968 as a cap on Truth in Lending Act (TILA) recoveries has been rendered inapplicable by subsequent amendments, so that parties who suffer no actual damages may now recover far in excess of the previous $1,000 cap. For petitioner: Donald Ayer, Jones Day, Washington, D.C. For respondent: A. Hugo Blankingship III, Blankingship & Associates, Alexandria, Va. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 6Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., et al. No. 02-1028 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a cargo owner that contracts with a freight forwarder for transportation of goods to a destination in the United States is bound by the contracts that the freight forwarder makes with carriers to provide that transportation. For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.; and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, Washington, D.C. • Cooper Industries Inc. v. Aviall Services Inc. No. 02-1192 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a private party who has not been the subject of an underlying civil action pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may bring an action to recover costs spent voluntarily to clean up properties contaminated by hazardous substances. For petitioner: William Bradford Reynolds, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, Washington, D.C.; and Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Richard Faulk, Gardere Wynne Sewell, Houston. MONDAY, OCT. 11 Court closed for legal holiday. TUESDAY, OCT. 12Josue Leocal v. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, et al. No. 03-583 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether, in the absence of criminal intent, driving while under the influence that causes serious bodily injury is a “crime of violence” that constitutes an “aggravated felony” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. For petitioner: Joseph Sollers III, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Dan Himmelfarb, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Keyse G. Jama v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service No. 03-674 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the attorney general can remove an alien to another country without obtaining that country’s acceptance of the alien prior to removal. For petitioner: Jeffrey Keyes, Briggs and Moran, Minneapolis. For respondent: Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. WEDNESDAY, OCT. 13Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons No. 03-633 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Question presented: Once this Court holds that a particular punishment is not “cruel and unusual” and thus not barred by the Eighth and 14th amendments, can a lower court reach a contrary decision based on its own analysis of evolving standards? Is the imposition of the death penalty on a person who commits a murder at age 17 “cruel and unusual,” and thus barred by the Eighth and 14th amendments? For petitioner: James Layton, state solicitor, Jefferson City, Mo. For respondent: Seth Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C. • A. Neil Clark, Field Office Director, Seattle Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. v. Sergio S. Martinez No. 03-878 • Daniel Benitez v. Robert A. Wallis, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service No. 03-7434 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Whether immigration laws require the release of an arriving alien who was apprehended at the border of the United States, denied admission, and ordered removed from the United States. For Martinez: Christine Dahl, assistant federal public defender, Portland, Ore. For Benitez: John Mills, Mills & Carlin, Jacksonville, Fla. For United States: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.