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.
Volvo Trucks North America Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC Inc. No. 04-905 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: whether an unaccepted offer that does not lead to a purchase may be a basis for liability under the Act. Whether the Act permits recovery of damages by a disfavored purchaser that does lose sales or profits to a competitor that does not purchase from the defendant, but does not lose sales or profits to any purchaser that “receives the benefit of” the defendant’s price discrimination. For petitioners: Roy Englert Jr. and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.
Central Virginia Community College v. Bernard Katz No. 04-885 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: May Congress use the Article I bankruptcy clause to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity? For petitioners: William Thro, solicitor general, Richmond, Va. For respondent: Kim Martin Lewis, Disnmore & Shole, Cincinnati.
Maryland v. Blake No. 04-373 Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Question presented: Did the police actions in question constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation, and if so, were they appropriately ruled inadmissible at trial? For petitioner: Kathryn Grill Graeff, assistant attorney general, Baltimore, and James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Kenneth Ravenell, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, Baltimore.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, et al. No. 04-597 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: whether the Department of Education can collect defaulted student loans by offsetting a portion of a debtor’s Social Security benefits without regard to the 10-year limitation period under the Debt Collection Act, given that Congress has expressly abrogated all otherwise applicable statutes of limitations for the collection of student loans. For petitioner: Burck Bailey, Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, and Malcolm Stewart, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Robert Schroeder, Bingham McCutchen, Los Angeles.
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service, et al. No. 04-848 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: whether a cause of action for personal injury resulting from the negligent delivery of mail is a claim “arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter” that is excepted from the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act. For petitioner: James Radmore, Philadelphia. For respondent: Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Martin et ux. v. Franklin Capital Corp., et al. No. 04-1140 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Question presented: What legal standard governs the decision whether to award fees and expenses upon remanding a removed case to state court? For petitioner: Samuel Heldman, Gardner, Middlebrooks, Gibbons, Kittrell & Olsen, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Jan Chilton, Severson & Werson, San Francisco.
Georgia v. Randolph No. 04-1067 Certiorari to the Georgia Supreme Court. Question presented: Can police search a home when a co-habitant consents and the other co-habitant is present and does not consent? For petitioner: Paula Smith, senior assistant attorney general, Atlanta, and Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe, Washington, D.C.
U.S. v. Georgia, et al. 04-1203 Goodman v. Georgia, et al. 04-1236 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: whether, and to what extent, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 validly abrogates state sovereign immunity for suits by prisoners with disabilities challenging discrimination by state-operated prisons. Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress’ power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, as applied to the administration of prison systems. For petitioner: Samuel Bagenstos, Washington University School of Law, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Gregory Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., and Gene Schaerr, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.
Evans v. Chavis No. 04-721 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Did the 9th Circuit contravene the Supreme Court’s decision in Carey v. Saffold when it held that a prisoner who delayed more than three years before filing a habeas petition with the California Supreme Court did not “unreasonably” delay in filing the petition and therefore was entitled to tolling during that entire period because the California Supreme Court summarily denied the petition without comment or citation, which the 9th Circuit construed as a denial on the merits? For petitioner: Catherine Baker Chatman, deputy attorney general, Sacramento, Calif. For respondent: Peter Stris, Willenken Loh Stris Lee & Tran, Los Angeles.

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.