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, APRIL 18Grable & Sons Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing No. 04-603 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Does a state quiet title action, which alleges that the Internal Revenue Service failed to comply with procedures notifying delinquent taxpayers of property seizure, constitute a federal question allowing removal of suit to federal court? For petitioner: Eric Zagrans, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Michael Walton, Rhoades McKee, Grand Rapids, Mich.; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). • Johnson v. California No. 04-6964 Certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California for the 1st Appellate District. Question presented: Whether, under Batson v. Kentucky, counsel objecting to the use of peremptory challenges must show it is more likely than not that the challenges were based on impermissible group bias. For petitioner: Stephen Bedrick, solo practitioner, Oakland, Calif. (Appointed by the Court.) For respondent: Seth Schalit, supervising deputy attorney general, San Francisco. TUESDAY, APRIL 19Bradshaw v. Stumpf No. 04-637 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a prosecutor who used conflicting theories to convict both petitioner and an accomplice committed due process violation. Also, whether the guilty plea was voluntary. For petitioner: Douglas Cole, state solicitor, Columbus, Ohio. For respondent: Alan Freedman, Midwest Center for Justice, Evanston, Ill. (Appointed by the Court.) • Mayle v. Felix No. 04-563 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether an amendment to a petition relates back to the original filing date, allowing for a new claim. For petitioner: Mathew Chan, deputy attorney general, Sacramento, Calif.; and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: David Porter, assistant federal defender, Sacramento, Calif. (Appointed by the Court.) WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I Ltd., et al. No. 03-1237 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: Whether the drug research safe harbor provision protects animal studies. For petitioner: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, New York; and Daryl Joseffer, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Mauricio Flores, McDermott Will & Emery, Irvine, Calif. • Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States, ex rel. Karen T. Wilson No. 04-169 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: In a worker retaliation case, whether the federal statute of limitations under the False Claims Act or an analogous state limitation should be applied. For petitioner: Christopher Browning Jr., solicitor general, Raleigh, N.C. For respondent: Mark Hurt, solo practitioner, Abingdon, Va.; and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). MONDAY, APRIL 25Halbert v. Michigan No. 03-10198 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Michigan. Questions presented: Whether state law denying counsel to those who plead guilty violates the 14th Amendment, and whether the petitioner is entitled to resentencing on ineffective assistance of counsel claim. For petitioner: David Moran, Wayne State University Law School, Detroit. For respondent: Bernard Restuccia, assistant attorney general, Lansing, Mich. • Gonzalez v. James v. Crosby Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections No. 04-6432 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Whether a motion denying post-conviction relief is a second petition under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, warranting dismissal. For petitioner: Paul Rashkind, assistant federal public defender, Miami. For respondent: Christopher Kise, solicitor general, Tallahassee, Fla.; and Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). TUESDAY, APRIL 26American Trucking Associations Inc. and USF Holland Inc. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al. No. 03-1230 • Mid-Con Freight Systems Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al. No. 03-1234 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for Michigan. Questions presented: Does a state fee on vehicles operating intrastate violate the commerce clause? Is a fee on vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce pre-empted? For petitioners in 03-1230: Robert Digges Jr., American Trucking Associations Inc., Alexandria, Va. For petitioners in 03-1234: James Hanson, Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, Indianapolis. For respondents: Henry Boynton, assistant solicitor general, Lansing, Mich.; and Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for the United States, as amicus curiae). • Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gregory Thompson No. 04-514 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the 6th Circuit was able to withdraw an opinion in which it affirmed a denial of habeas corpus relief without notice to the state. For petitioner: Jennifer Smith, associate deputy attorney general, Nashville. For respondent: Matthew Shors, O’Melveny & Myers, Washington, D.C. ( pro hac vice). WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States No. 04-368 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Whether jury instructions misinterpreted the elements of a witness tampering offense. For petitioner: Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

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.