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. TUESDAY, FEB. 22Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. No. 04-108 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Question presented: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s public-use clause authorizes New London to exercise eminent domain power to implement an economic development plan on nonslum, nonblight property where the city claims the plan would create more than 1,000 jobs, increase tax and other revenues, and revitalize an economically depressed area. For petitioner: Scott Bullock, Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Wesley Horton, Horton Shields & Knox, Hartford, Conn. • Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. No. 04-163 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the court may invalidate Hawaii’s economic rent control legislation and enjoin its enforcement under the just compensation clause based on the fact that the legislation fails to substantially advance a legitimate state interest. For petitioner: Mark Bennett, attorney general, Honolulu; Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Craig Stewart, Jones Day, San Francisco. WEDNESDAY, FEB. 23Francis A. Orff, et al. v. United States, et al. No. 03-1566 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether farmers are “intended” third-party beneficiaries in a contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation such that the farmers are entitled to waive sovereign immunity and sue the federal government. For petitioner: William Smiland, Smiland & Khachigian, Los Angeles. For respondent United States: Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Wetlands Water District: Stuart Somach, Somach, Simmons & Dunn, Sacramento, Calif. • Exxon Mobil Corp., et al. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. No. 03-1696 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal courts from appellate review of state court decisions, may divest a U.S. district court of jurisdiction where an identical claim by Exxon Mobil and its subsidiaries remains pending in Delaware’s Supreme Court. For petitioner: Gregory Coleman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Austin, Texas. For respondent: Gregory Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, D.C. MONDAY, FEB. 28Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. No. 03-1388 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether and to what extent Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act applies to companies operating foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. waters. For petitioner: Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe, Washington, D.C.; David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C. • John A. Pace v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al. No. 03-9627 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: Whether an untimely state postconviction petition may be “properly filed” under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 in light of conflicting appellate opinions between the 3rd Circuit, which says, based on Merritt v. Blaine, that untimely postconviction relief is not properly filed, and the 5th and 9th circuits, which say, based on Artuz v. Bennett, that the untimely petitions may be properly filed. For petitioner: David Wycoff, assistant federal defender, Philadelphia. For respondent: Ronald Eisenberg, deputy district attorney, Philadelphia. TUESDAY, MARCH 1Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services Inc., et al. No. 04-70 • Maria Del Rosario Ortega, et al. v. Star-Kist Foods Inc. No. 04-79 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th and 1st circuits, respectively. Question presented: Whether in diversity actions, where one plaintiff meets the required amount-in-controversy of $75,000, federal courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear related claims of other plaintiffs who do not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. For petitioner Exxon Mobil Corp.: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For respondent Allapattah Services: Eugene Stearns, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, Miami. For petitioner Maria Del Rosario Ortega: Donald Ayer, Jones Day, Washington, D.C. For respondent Star-Kist Foods Inc.: Robert Long Jr., Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C. • Carman L. Deck v. Missouri No. 04-5293 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. Question presented: Whether allowing a capital defendant to attend the sentencing phase of trial while shackled and handcuffed to a belly chain and in view of the jury violates the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and 14th amendments. If so, does the state or the defendant bear the burden of showing harmless error was beyond a reasonable doubt? For petitioner: Rosemary Percival, assistant public defender, Kansas City, Mo. For respondent: Cheryl Nield, assistant attorney general for the state of Missouri, Jefferson City, Mo. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2McCreary County, Ky., et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al. No. 03-1693 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a Ten Commandments display in a Kentucky county courthouse violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause, and whether the Supreme Court’s Lemon test, used in deciding establishment clause issues, should be overruled and replaced with a new test. For petitioner: Mathew Staver, Liberty Counsel, Orlando, Fla.; Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: David Freidman, Fernandez Friedman Grossman Kohn & Son, Louisville, Ky. • Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al. No. 03-1500 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a 6-foot high and 3-foot wide monument bearing the Ten Commandments, located between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause. For petitioner: Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke University School of Law, Durham, N.C. For respondent: Greg Abbott, attorney general, Austin, Texas; Paul Clement, acting solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae).

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.