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, JAN. 9 Booker Hudson Jr. v. Michigan No. 04-1360 Certiorari to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Question presented: Does the inevitable discovery doctrine create a per se exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence seized after a Fourth Amendment “knock and announce” violation, or is evidence subject to suppression after such a violation? For petitioner: David Moran, Wayne State University Law School, Detroit. For respondent: Timothy Baughman, Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, Detroit, and David Salmons, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae.
TUESDAY, JAN. 10 Texaco Inc. v. Fouad Dagher, et al. No. 04-805 Shell Oil Co. v. Fouad Dagher, et al. No. 04-814 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether it is illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which the joint venture sells its products. For petitioners: Glen Nager, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., and Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae. For respondents: Joseph Alioto, Alioto Law Firm, San Francisco. Michael Hartman, et al. v. William Moore Jr. No. 04-1495 Certiorari to the D.C. Court of Appeals Question presented: Whether law enforcement agents may be liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment when the prosecution was supported by probable cause. For petitioners: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Patrick McCartan, Jones Day, Cleveland.
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 11 Jenifer Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., d/b/a The Moonlight Caf� No. 04-944 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: Does Section 701(B) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act limit the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts in limiting its application to employers with 15 or more employees, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of the Title VII claim? For petitioner: Jeffrey Schwartz, Watkins Ludlum Winter & Stennis, New Orleans, and Daryl Joseffer, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae. For respondent: Brett Prendergast, City of New Orleans Law Department, New Orleans. Paul Gregory House v. Ricky Bell, Warden No. 04-8990 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Question presented: Did the majority err in applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), to hold that the petitioner’s compelling new evidence, though presenting at the very least a colorable claim of actual innocence, was, as a matter of law, insufficient to excuse his failure to present that evidence before the state courts, because he had failed to negate each and every item of circumstantial evidence that had been offered against him at the original trial? And what constitutes a “truly persuasive showing of actual innocence” pursuant to Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief? For petitioner: Stephen M. Kissinger, assistant federal defender, Knoxville, Tenn. For respondent: Jennifer Smith, associate deputy attorney general, Departnment of Justice, Nashville, Tenn.
TUESDAY, JAN. 17 Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. v. Federal Election Commission No. 04-1581 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Question presented: Whether the three-judge district court correctly dismissed Wisconsin Right to Life’s constitutional challenge to the federal prohibition on the use of corporate treasury funds to finance “electioneering communication.” For petitioner: James Bopp Jr., Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom, Terre Haute, Ind. For respondent: Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Gary Kent Jones v. Linda Flowers, et al. No. 04-1477 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas. Question presented: When a mailed notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does due process require the government to make any additional effort to locate the owner before taking the property? For petitioner: Michael Kirkpatrick, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C., and James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae.
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 18 United States v. Jeffrey Grubbs No. 04-1414 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence when officers conduct a search under an anticipatory warrant after the warrant’s triggering condition is satisfied, but the triggering condition is not set forth either in the warrant itself or in an affidavit that is both incorporated into the warrant and shown to the person whose property is being searched. For petitioner: Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Mark Reichel, assistant federal defender, Sacramento, Calif. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Shadi Dabit No. 04-1371 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Whether, as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) pre-empts state law class action claims based on allegedly fraudulent statements or omissions brought solely on behalf of persons who were induced thereby to hold or retain (and not purchase or sell) securities. For petitioner: Jay Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, New York, and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., as amicus curiae. For respondent: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C.

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.