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, OCT. 30 Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, et al. No. 05-0593 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Questions presented: Does the Westfall Act authorize the attorney general to certify that an employee was acting within the scope of his office at the time of an incident solely by denying that an incident occurred? And does the Westfall Act forbid a district court from remanding an action to state court after concluding that the attorney general’s certification was not authorized? For petitioner: Eric Grant, Sacramento, Calif. For respondent: Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Lorenzo L. Jones v. Barbara Bock, Warden, et al. No. 05-7058 Timothy Williams v. William S. Overton, et al. No. 05-7142 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: When filing a complaint, must a prisoner show satisfaction of the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement (or attach proof of exhaustion to the complaint)? Does the PLRA require a prisoner to name a particular defendant in his administrative grievance? Does the PLRA prescribe a “total exhaustion” rule that requires a federal district court to dismiss a prisoner’s federal civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies? For petitioner: Jean-Claude Andre, Ivey, Smith & Ramirez, Los Angeles (appointed by the Court). For respondent: Thomas Casey, solicitor general, Office of the Attorney General, Lansing, Mich.
TUESDAY, OCT. 31 Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams No. 05-1256 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Oregon. Questions presented: When reviewing a jury’s award of punitive damages, can an appellate court’s conclusion that a defendant’s conduct was highly reprehensible then override the constitutional requirement that punitive damages must be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff? Does due process permit a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on nonparties? For petitioner: Andrew Frey, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, New York. For respondent: Robert Peck, Center for Constitutional Litigation, Washington, D.C. Gary Lawrence v. Florida No. 05-8820 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Questions presented: Does the one-year statute of limitations period of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act deny habeas relief? Does the confusion around the statute of limitations — as evidenced by the split in the circuits — constitute an “extraordinary circumstance,” entitling a defendant to equitable tolling during the time when his claim is being considered by the Supreme Court on certiorari? For petitioners: Mary Catherine Bonner, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. (appointed by the Court). For respondents: Cassandra Dolgin, assistant attorney general, Florida Attorney General’s Office, Tallahassee, Fla.
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 1 Environmental Defense, et al. v. Duke Energy Corp., et al. No. 05-0848 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Questions presented: Does the court of appeals lack jurisdiction by virtue of Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, which provides that the act may be reviewed only through properly filed petitions for review, not through enforcement actions? Does the Clean Air Act require the Environmental Protection Agency to interpret the statutory term “modification” consistently in its prevention of significant deterioration provisions and new source performance standards regulations? For petitioner: Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin, Washington, D.C. Glen Whorton, Director, Nevada Department of Corrections v. Marvin Howard Bockting No. 05-0595 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Did the 9th Circuit’s ruling, which is in direct conflict with opinions of the 2nd, 6th, 7th, and 10th circuits, err in holding that the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington regarding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment applies retroactively to cases on collateral review? Does the 9th Circuit’s ruling that Crawford applies retroactively to cases on collateral review violate the Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling in Teague v. Lane? Did the 9th Circuit err in holding that the Teague exceptions for private conduct are beyond criminal prosecution and watershed rules? For petitioners: George Chanos, attorney general, Las Vegas; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae). For respondents: Frances Forsman, federal public defender for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas.
MONDAY, NOV. 6 Robert Louis Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, et al. No. 05-0996 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Question presented: Can the right to convert a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to another chapter be denied notwithstanding the plain language of the statute and its legislative history? For petitioner: David Baker, Boston. For respondent: G. Eric Brunstad Jr., Bingham McCutchen, Hartford, Conn.; and Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae). Andre Wallace v. Chicago Police Officers Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy No. 05-1240 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: When does a claim for damages arising out of a false arrest or other search or seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment accrue when the fruits of the search were introduced in a person’s criminal trial and he was convicted? For petitioner: Kenneth Flaxman, Chicago. For respondent: Benna Solomon, deputy corporation counsel, Chicago.
TUESDAY, NOV. 7 Alphonso James Jr. v. United States No. 05-9264 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Did the 11th Circuit err by holding that all convictions in Florida for attempted burglary qualify as violent felonies, which would trigger higher sentences under the Armed Career Criminal Act? For petitioner: Craig Crawford, assistant federal public defender, Orlando, Fla. For respondent: Jonathan Marcus, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Lonnie Lee Burton v. Belinda Stewart, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center No. 05-9222 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Is the holding in Blakely v. Washington a new rule or was it dictated by Apprendi v. New Jersey? If Blakely is a new rule, does it require that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum apply retroactively? For petitioner: Jeffrey Fisher, Davis Wright Tremaine, Stanford, Calif. (appointed by the Court). For respondent: William Collins, deputy solicitor general, Olympia, Wash.; and Matthew Roberts, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (as amicus curiae).
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 8 Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Leroy Carhart, et al. No. 05-0380 Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., et al. No. 05-1382 Certiorari to the Courts of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and 9th Circuit. Question presented: Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 invalid because it lacks a health exception or otherwise unconstitutional on its face? For petitioner: Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Priscilla Smith, Center for Reproductive Rights, New York; and Eve Gartner, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 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.