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, NOV. 1Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John W. Banks II No. 03-892 • Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sigitas J. Banaitis No. 03-907 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Whether an attorney’s contingent fee should be included in gross taxable proceeds from litigation. For petitioner: David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Banks: James Carty, Cotkin, Collins & Ginsburg, Los Angeles. For respondent Banaitis: Philip Jones, Duffy Kekel, Portland, Ore. • Willard Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co. No. 03-814 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Question presented: What defines a special purpose watercraft, in this case a dredge, as a “vessel” in order for a worker’s status to qualify as a “seaman” under the Jones Act? For petitioner: David Kaplan, Kaplan/Bond Group, Boston; and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Frederick Connelly Jr., Peabody & Arnold, Boston. TUESDAY, NOV. 2State of Florida v. Joe Elton Nixon No. 03-931 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Questions presented: Whether a defense counsel is ineffective in a capital murder case when using, without a client’s approval, a strategy that contests a possible sentence � in this case the death penalty � rather than addressing the overwhelming body of evidence against the client, and whether explicit verbal consent to trial strategy is necessary. For Florida: George Lemieux, deputy attorney general, Tallahassee, Fla., and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Edward Tillinghast III, Coudert Brothers, New York. • Garrison S. Johnson v. California, et al. No. 03-636 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Is California’s policy of routine initial 60-day racial segregation of state prisoners subject to the same scrutiny used in other segregation cases, or is it protected under Turner v. Safley? Does this practice violate the equal protection clause? For petitioner: Bert Deixler, Proskauer Rose, Los Angeles; and Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Frances Grunder, senior assistant attorney general, San Francisco. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 3Gary Sherwood Small v. United States No. 03-750 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd District. Question presented: Can a foreign conviction be counted in the phrase “convicted in any court” to meet the requirement of a law that prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition? For petitioner: Paul Boas, Pittsburgh. For respondent: Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Azel P. Smith, et al. v. City of Jackson, Miss., et al. No. 03-1160 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether claims of disparate impact are sufficient to make an age bias case under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. For petitioner: Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Glen Nager, Jones Day, Washington, D.C. MONDAY, NOV. 8Gerald Devenpeck, et al. v. Jerome Anthony Alford No. 03-710 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Fourth Amendment is violated if a police officer has probable cause in an arrest for a closely related offense other than that which was originally articulated at the time of arrest. For petitioner: Maureen Hart, senior assistant attorney general, Olympia, Wash.; and James Comey, deputy attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: R. Stuart Phillips, Poulsbo, Wash. • Reginald Shepard v. United States No. 03-9168 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Question presented: Whether, in light of a string of previous “generic burglary” convictions, a conviction of being a “felon in possession of a firearm” counts in a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act. For petitioner: Linda Thompson, Thompson & Thompson, Springfield, Mass. For respondent: John Elwood, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. TUESDAY, NOV. 9Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, et al. v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. No. 02-1472 • Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma No. 03-853 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, respectively. Question presented: Whether the secretary is required by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to pay costs incurred by self-determination contracts through the Indian Health Service when appropriations were insufficient to fully fund “contract support costs.” For the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, et al.: Lloyd Benton Miller, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, Washington, D.C. For Secretary Thompson: Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • David B. Pasquantino, et al. v. United States No. 03-725 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the federal wire fraud statute authorizes criminal prosecution of an alleged fraudulent scheme to avoid tax payments to a foreign sovereign. For petitioner: Laura Brill, Irell & Manella, Los Angeles. For respondent: Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. WEDNESDAY, NOV. 10State of Illinois v. Roy I. Caballes No. 03-923 Certiorari to the Illinois Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether, under the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause, reasonable and articulable suspicion is required to justify the use of a drug-detection canine to search a vehicle during a routine traffic stop. For petitioner: Lisa Madigan, attorney general, Chicago; and Christopher Wray, assistant attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Ralph Meczyk, Law Office of Ralph E. Meczyk, Chicago. • Jill J. Brown, Acting Warden v. William Charles Payton No. 03-1039 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether U.S. Code was violated by the 9th Circuit in finding the California Supreme Court objectionably unreasonable in holding that the state’s “catch-all” mitigation instructions in capital cases is constitutional as applied to post-crime evidence in mitigation. For petitioner: Andrea Cortina, deputy attorney general, San Diego. For respondent: Dean Gits, chief deputy federal public defender, Los Angeles. (Appointed by the Court.)

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.