X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
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. 28 • Richard Will, et al. v. Susan Hallock, et al. No. 04-1332 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Whether a final judgment in an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim. Additionally, did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal of the District Court’s order denying a motion to dismiss under the FTCA’s judgment bar? For petitioners: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Allison Zieve, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C. • Wachovia Bank, National Association v. Daniel Schmidt III, et al. No. 04-1186 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Whether, for the purposes of federal diversity jurisdiction, a national banking association is deemed to be a citizen of every state in which the association maintains a branch and whether the word “located” as used is ambiguous. For petitioner: Andrew Frey, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York, and Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: James Gilreath, the Gilreath Law Firm, Greenville, S.C.
TUESDAY, NOV. 29 • Illinois Tool Works Inc., et al. v. Independent Ink Inc. No. 04-1329 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: Whether, under the Sherman Act, alleging that the defendant engaged in unlawful tying by conditioning a patent license on the licensee’s purchase of a non-patented good, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant possessed market power in the relevant market for the tying product, or whether market power instead is presumed based solely on the existence of the patent of the tying product. For petitioners: Andrew Pincus, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, D.C., and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Kathleen Sullivan, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, Redwood Shores, Calif. • Buckeye Check Cashing Inc. v. John Cardegna, et al. No. 04-1264 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida. Question presented: Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred by holding that the Federal Arbitration Act allows a party to avoid arbitration by claiming that the underlying contract containing an arbitration clause (but not the arbitration clause itself) is void for illegality. For petitioner: Christopher Landau, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Paul Bland Jr., Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Washington, D.C.
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 30 • Joseph Scheidler, et al. v. National Organization for Women Inc., et al. No. 04-1244 • Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women Inc., et al. No. 04-1352 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Question presented: Did the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals disregard the Supreme Court’s mandate by holding that “all” of the predicate acts supporting the jury’s finding of a RICO violation were not reversed, that the “judgment that petitioners violated RICO” was not necessarily reversed, and that the “injunction issued by the District Court” might not need to be vacated? Additionally, whether the 7th Circuit correctly held that the Hobbs Act can be read to punish acts or threats of physical violence against “any person or property” in a manner that “in any way or degree” affects commerce, even if such acts or threats of violence are wholly unconnected to either extortion or robbery. For petitioners: Alan Untereiner, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, Washington, D.C., and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Erwin Chemerinsky, Duke University School of Law, Durham, N.C. • Kelly Ayotte, Attorney General of New Hampshire v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al. No. 04-1144 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Question presented: Did the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals apply the correct standard in a facial challenge to a statute regulating abortion when it ruled that the undue burden standard cited in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart applied, rather than the “no set of circumstances” standard set forth in U.S. v. Salerno? For petitioner: Kelly Ayotte, attorney general, Concord, N.H., and Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Jennifer Dalven, American Civil Liberties Union, New York.

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.