X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are the cases coming before the U.S. Supreme Court this month and the lawyers who will argue them. “Docket Watch” appears monthly when the high court hears arguments. Monday, Oct. 1 Correctional Services Corp. v. John Malesko No. 00-860 Certiorari to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: May a privately run federal prison be held liable for violating a prisoner’s constitutional rights while acting under the color of federal law? For petitioner: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C.; Jeffrey Lamken, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Steven Pasternak, Law Offices of Steven Pasternak, Livingston, N.J. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co., et al. v. Janette Knudson, et vir. No. 99-1786 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Do federal courts have jurisdiction over actions brought by insurance companies against plan participants seeking to recoup medical expenses paid by third parties responsible for the injuries? For petitioners: James Jorden, Jorden Burt, Washington, D.C.; Paul Wolfson, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent, as amicus curiae invited to support the judgment below: Richard Taranto, Farr & Taranto, Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Oct. 2 Chickasaw Nation, et al. v. United States No. 00-507 Certiorari to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Does the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act exempt Indian tribes from excise and occupational taxes on wagering imposed by the Internal Revenue Code? For petitioners: Graydon Luthey Jr., Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, Tulsa, Okla. For respondent: Edward DuMont, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. National Cable Television Association v. Gulf Power Co., et al.; Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Gulf Power Co., et al. Nos. 00-832 and 00-843 Certiorari to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Does a federal law directing the FCC to set the rates a utility company may charge a cable TV system for attaching its own wires to the utility’s poles apply when the cable company uses the poles to provide high-speed Internet access as well as conventional TV programming? For private petitioner in No. 00-832: Peter Keisler, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For petitioners in No. 00-843: James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Thomas Steindler, McDermott, Will & Emery, Washington, D.C. Wednesday, Oct. 3 New York, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, et al.; Enron Power Marketing Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Nos. 00-568 and 00-809 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Question presented: Under what circumstances does FERC have jurisdiction over deciding whether public utilities discriminated unlawfully against private competitors in providing access to their facilities for transmitting electric power? For petitioners in No. 00-568: Lawrence Malone, New York State Public Service Commission, Albany, N.Y. For petitioner in No. 00-809: Louis Cohen, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. J.E.M. Ag Supply Inc., et al. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. No. 99-1996 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: Are plants developed by human intervention patentable? For petitioners: Bruce Johnson, Lewis, Webster, Johnson, Van Winkle & DeVolder, Des Moines, Iowa. For respondent: Edmund Sease, Zarley, McKee, Thomte, Voorhees & Sease, Des Moines; Lawrence Wallace, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Tuesday, Oct. 9 United States Postal Service v. Maria Gregory No. 00-758 Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Question presented: In cases of federal employees challenging discipline or removal for misconduct, may a federal agency consider prior disciplinary actions that are the subject of other pending grievance proceedings? For petitioner: Gregory Garre, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Henk Brands, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans, Washington, D.C. TRW Inc. v. Adelaide Andrews No. 00-1045 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: May a plaintiff suing under the Fair Credit Reporting Act bring her action more than two years after the date of the discovery of injury, even in the absence of any willful misrepresentation? For petitioner: Glen Nager, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Andrew Henderson, Hall & Henderson, Los Angeles; Kent Jones, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Wednesday, Oct. 10 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House Inc. No. 99-1823 Certiorari to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Does an employee’s agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer bar the EEOC, as plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as back pay, reinstatement, and damages? For petitioner: Paul Clement, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: David Gordon, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Atlanta. Verizon Communications Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al.; WorldCom Inc., et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al.; Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.; AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al.; General Communications Inc. v. Iowa Utilities Board, et al. Nos. 00-511, 00-555, 00-587, 00-590, 00-602 Certiorari to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Question presented: Does the 5th Amendment’s takings clause or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier’s “historical” costs into the rates that it may charge new entrants for access to its network elements? For petitioner in 00-511: William Barr, Verizon Communications Inc., Washington, D.C.For federal petitioners: Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For petitioners in 00-555, 00-587, and 00-590: Donald Verrilli Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C.

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.