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, NOV. 27 • Bell Atlantic Corp., et al. v. Twombley, William, et al. No. 05-1126 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Does a complaint state a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act if it alleges that the defendants engaged in parallel conduct and asserts that the defendants were participants in a “conspiracy” without any allegations that would establish the existence of a conspiracy? For petitioners: Michael Kellogg, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C. For respondents: J. Douglas Richards, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, New York; and Thomas Barnett, assistant attorney general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). • Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Inc. No. 05-1074 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Question presented: Can a plaintiff make a disparate-pay claim under Title VII against an employer when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitation period but results from intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that were made outside the statute of limitations? For petitioner: Kevin Russell, Howe & Russell, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Glen Nager, Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; and Irving Gornstein, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae).
TUESDAY, NOV. 28 • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. No. 05-381 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: What standard must be met by a plaintiff alleging that a defendant engaged in “predatory bidding” constituting anti-competitive conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act? For petitioner: Andrew Pincus, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, D.C.; and Kannon Shanmugam, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Michael Haglund, Haglund Kelley Horngren Jones & Wilder, Portland, Ore. • KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. No. 04-1350 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: Did the Federal Circuit err in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held “obvious,” and thus unpatentable, in the absence of some proven “teaching, suggestion or motivation” that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior-art teachings in the manner claimed? For petitioner: James Dabney, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, New York; and Thomas Hungar, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Thomas Goldstein, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington, D.C. • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, et al. No. 05-1120 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Questions presented: May the Environmental Protection Agency administrator decline to regulate the emissions of motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act? Does the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under the act? For petitioner: James Milkey, assistant Massachusetts attorney general, Boston. For respondents: Gregory Garre, deputy solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Watters v. Wachovia Bank N.A. No. 05-1342 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Questions presented: Do regulations promulgated by the comptroller of the currency under the National Bank Act concerning pre-emption of state laws merit judicial deference under Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council? Does the 10th Amendment prohibit federal pre-emption of state banking laws concerning operating subsidiaries of national banks? For petitioner: E. John Blanchard, assistant Michigan attorney general, Lansing, Mich. For respondents: Robert Long, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.; and Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae).

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.