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, JAN. 8 • Moylan v. Camacho No. 06-116 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Guam. Question presented: Did the Supreme Court of Guam incorrectly interpret the Guam Organic Act’s debt-limitation provision? For petitioner: Seth Waxman, WilmerHale, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Beth Brinkmann, Morrison & Foerster, Washington, D.C. • United Haulers Association, et al. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, et al. No. 05-1345 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Question presented: Does the ban against hoarding solid waste within a municipality, as articulated in Carbone v. Town of Clarkstown, apply when the processing plant is publicly owned? For petitioners: Evan Tager, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Michael Cahill, Germano & Cahill, Holbrook, N.Y., and Caitlin Halligan, solicitor general of New York (for New York, as amicus curiae).
TUESDAY, JAN. 9 • Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. No 06-102 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. Question presented: Must a district court establish that it has personal jurisdiction over a defendant before dismissing the suit on the grounds of forum non conveniens? For petitioner: Gregory Castanias, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., and Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, assistant to the solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Ann-Michele Higgins, Rawle & Henderson, Philadelphia. • Schriro v. Landrigan No. 05-1575 Certiorari to the U.S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: How should an “ineffective assistance of counsel” be assessed under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act when the defendant tells his lawyer not to prevent mitigating evidence? For petitioner: Kent Cattani, assistant attorney general, Phoenix. For respondent: Donald Verrilli Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C.
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 10 • Zuni Public School District No. 89, et al. v. Department of Education, et al. No. 05-1508 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Question presented: In determining how much federal aid should go to local school districts near military bases and Indian reservations, can the secretary of the U.S. Department of Education develop an equalization formula that overrides the formula mandated by Congress? For petitioners: Ronald Van Amberg, Van Amberg, Rogers, Yepa & Abeita, Santa Fe, N.M. For state respondent: Leigh Manasevit, Brustein & Manasevit, Washington, D.C. For federal respondent: Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. • Davenport, et al. v. Washington Education Association No. 05-1589 • Washington v. Washington Education Association No. 05-1657 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington. Question presented: Do labor unions have a First Amendment right to use fees paid by nonunion employees for the union’s political purposes? For petitioners: Robert McKenna, attorney general, Olympia, Wash., and Paul Clement, solicitor general, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: John West, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C.
MONDAY, JAN. 15 Court closed for legal holiday.
TUESDAY, JAN. 16 • Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Burr, et al. No. 06-84 • Geico General Insurance Co., et al. v. Edo No. 06-100 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: What is the standard of proof for determining whether someone is guilty of “willfully” violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act? For petitioners: Maureen Mahoney, Latham & Watkins, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Scott Shorr, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, Portland, Ore. • Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. No. 05-1429 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Question presented: Can a litigant recover attorney fees under a contract or state statute when the case involves federal bankruptcy law? For petitioner: Eric Brunstad Jr., Bingham McCutchen, Hartford, Conn. For respondent: Joshua Rosenkranz, Heller Ehrman, New York.
WEDNESDAY, JAN. 17 • Smith v. Texas No. 05-11304 Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. Question presented: Did the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by finding that jurors adequately considered the petitioner’s mitigating evidence, respond adequately to the Supreme Court’s finding of constitutional error in remanding the case? For petitioner: Jordan Steiker, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas. For respondent: Ted Cruz, solicitor general, Austin, Texas. • Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman No. 05-11284 • Brewer v. Quarterman No. 05-11287 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Question presented: How should mitigating evidence about mental disorders be assessed under special Texas procedures and under recent Supreme Court precedents? For petitioner: Robert Owen, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas (appointed by the Court). For respondent: Edward Marshall, assistant attorney general, Austin, Texas.

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.