X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Below are the 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. 3 Andrew J. Kontrick v. Robert A. Ryan No. 02-819 Certiorari to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the 60-day deadline established by Bankruptcy Rule 4004 for objecting to a debtor’s discharge in bankruptcy is jurisdictional, and therefore unwaivable. For petitioner: E. King Poor, Winston & Strawn, Chicago; and Kent Jones, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: James Figliulo, Figliulo & Silverman, Chicago. Maryland v. Joseph Jermaine Pringle No. 02-809 Certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from arresting occupants of a car where drugs and a roll of cash are found and all deny ownership of the contraband. Pringle claims his subsequent confession should be suppressed because the arrest was illegal. For petitioner: Gary Bair, assistant Maryland attorney general, Baltimore; and Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Nancy Forster, Maryland deputy public defender, Baltimore. Tuesday, Nov. 4 Jeff Groh v. Joseph R. Ramirez, et al. No. 02-811 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether law enforcement officers violate the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment when they execute a search warrant based on an attached affidavit describing the items to be searched, but not including the same level of detail as the affidavit. For petitioner: Richard Cordray, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, D.C.; and Austin Schlick, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: Vince Kozakiewicz, Kozakiewicz Law Office, Boise, Idaho. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v.Charles E. Edwards No. 02-1196 Certiorari to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether an investment scheme is excluded from the term “investment contract” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return. For petitioner: Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Michael Wolensky, Kutak Rock, Atlanta. Wednesday, Nov. 5 Illinois v. Robert S. Lidster No. 02-1060 Certiorari to the Illinois Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond prohibits police officers from arresting motorists for drunk driving while conducting a roadblock checkpoint organized to investigate another offense. For petitioner: Gary Feinerman, solicitor general of Illinois, Chicago; and Patricia Millett, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondent: Donald Ramsell, Ramsell & Armamentos, Wheaton, Ill. Monday, Nov. 10 John M. Lamie v. United States Trustee No. 02-693 Certiorari to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s section on compensation of officers authorizes a court to award fees to a Chapter 7 debtor’s attorney, if the omission of “debtor’s attorney” by Congress was inadvertent. For petitioner: Thomas Goldstein, Goldstein & Howe, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Lisa Blatt, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Michael D. Crawford v. State of Washington No. 02-9410 Certiorari to the Washington Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits admission of a potential accomplice’s out-of-court statement against a defendant, if parts of the statement “interlock” with the defendant’s statement. For petitioner: Jeffrey Fisher, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle. For respondent: John Jones, Washington senior deputy prosecuting attorney, Olympia, Wash. Wednesday, Nov. 12 General Dynamics Land Systems Inc. v.Dennis Cline, et al. No. 02-1080 Certiorari to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 prohibits “reverse discrimination” policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers covered by the act. The dispute arose after the decision by General Dynamics to provide full health benefits only to retirees who were older than 50 by a 1997 deadline. For petitioner: Donald Verrilli Jr., Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Mark Biggerman, Buckley King, Cleveland; and Paul Clement, Deputy SolicitorGeneral, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Olympia Airways v. Rubina Husain, et al. No. 02-1348 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether an airline is liable under the “accident” provision of the Warsaw Convention when an asthmatic passenger’s death is caused by exposure to cigarette smoke in the aircraft, and a flight attendant’s refusal to relocate the passenger. For petitioner: Andrew Harakas, Condon & Forsyth, New York. For respondents: H. Bartow Farr III, Farr & Taranto, Washington, D.C.; and Barbara McDowell, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, 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.