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, MARCH 27 Joseph Anza, et al. v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. No. 04-433 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Is a competitor injured under the RICO statute when the predicate acts of mail and wire fraud did not actually defraud the competitor and he did not rely on the alleged fraudulent behavior? For petitioners: David Frederick, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Kevin Roddy, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Woodbridge, N.J. Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald Banks No. 04-1739 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: Does a prison policy that denies newspapers, magazines, and photographs to the most difficult inmates violate the First Amendment? For petitioner: Louis Rovelli, executive deputy attorney general, Harrisburg, Pa., and Jonathan Marcus, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae) For respondent: Jere Krakoff, Stember Feinstein, Pittsburgh, Pa.
TUESDAY, MARCH 28 Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services Inc. No. 05-260 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Question presented: Can a plan fiduciary bring a civil action against a plan participant to obtain “appropriate equitable relief” when a term of the plan requires the participant to reimburse medical expenses if the participant recovers money from a third party? For petitioner: Peter Stris, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa, Calif. For respondent: Gregory Coleman, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, Austin, Texas, and James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae) Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al. No. 05-184 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Circuit of the District of Columbia. Question presented: Is the military commission established by the president to try detainees for alleged war crimes in the war on terror authorized under Congress’ Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or the inherent powers of the president? Can the detainees, under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, challenge, through a writ of habeas corpus, their detention? For petitioner: Neal Katyal, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29 Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon No. 04-10566 Mario A. Bustillo v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections No. 05-51 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon and the Supreme Court of Virginia. Question presented: Does the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations convey individual rights of consular notification and access to a foreign detainee enforceable in the courts of the United States? Does the state’s failure to notify a foreign detainee of his rights under the Vienna Convention result in the suppression of his statements to police? Contrary to the International Court of Justice’s interpretation of the Vienna Convention, may state courts refuse to consider violations of Article 36 of that treaty? For petitioner Sanchez-Llama: Peter Gartlan, Salem, Ore. For petitioner Bustillo: Mark Stancil, Baker Botts, Washington, D.C. For respondent Oregon: Mary Williams, Oregon solicitor general, Salem, Ore. For respondent Johnson: William Thro, state solicitor general, Richmond, Va., and Gregory Garre, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae.) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C. No. 05-130 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: Should the Supreme Court reconsider its precedents on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer? For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Seth Waxman, WilmerHale, Washington, D.C., and Jeffrey Minear, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (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.