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, March 22 Robert Tennard v. Doug Dretke, Director,Texas Department of Criminal Justice No. 02-10038 Robert Smith v. Doug Dretke, Director,Texas Department of Criminal Justice No. 02-11309 Certiorari to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether a capital murder defendant must provide evidence of a “uniquely severe permanent handicap,” as required by the high court’s 2001 decision in Penry v. Johnson, in order to bar the death penalty. For petitioners: Robert Owen, Owen & Rountree, Austin, Texas. For respondent: Edward Marshall, assistant attorney general, Texas Attorney General’s Office, Austin, Texas. Larry Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Courtof Nevada, Humboldt County, et al. No. 03-5554 Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada. Question presented: Whether a law requiring individuals to identify themselves to a police officer, even if the officer lacks probable cause, violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. For petitioner: Robert Dolan, deputy Nevada state public defender, Nevada State Public Defender’s Office, Winnemucca, Nev. For respondents: Conrad Hafen, senior deputy attorney general, Nevada Attorney General’s Office, Las Vegas; and Sri Srinivasan, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Tuesday, March 23 Ralph Howard Blakely Jr. v. State of Washington No. 02-1632 Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington. Question presented: Whether a judge, rather than a jury, may increase a suggested sentence as long as the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum. In the case, a Washington judge tacked an additional 37 months onto the sentence of a man who kidnapped his wife and hid her in a homemade coffin. For petitioner: Jeffrey Fisher, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle. For respondent: John Knodell Jr., Grant County prosecuting attorney, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Ephrata, Wash.; and Michael Dreeben, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). Aetna Health Inc., f/k/a Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc., et al. v. Juan Davila No. 02-1845 CIGNA HealthCare of Texas Inc., d/b/a CIGNA Corp. v. Ruby Calad, et al. No. 03-83 Certiorari to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether individuals may sue their health maintenance organizations under state law for negligently refusing to cover recommended treatment, or if the law is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. For petitioners: Miguel Estrada, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.; and James Feldman, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae). For respondents: George Young, Fort Worth, Texas. Wednesday, March 24 City of Littleton, Colorado v. Z.J. Gifts D-4, LLC, d/b/a Christal’s No. 02-1609 Certiorari to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the “prompt judicial review” required of cities that deny commercial licenses to adult business means the prompt commencement of proceedings or a prompt decision. For petitioner: J. Andrew Nathan, Nathan, Bremer, Dumm & Myers, Denver; and Douglas Cole, Ohio state solicitor, Ohio Attorney General’s Office, Columbus, Ohio (for Ohio, et al., as amicus curiae). For respondent: Michael Gross, Schwartz & Goldberg, Denver. Elk Grove Unified School District, et al.v. Michael Newdow, et al. No. 02-1624 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Questions presented: Whether a school district’s teacher-led recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause because it contains the words “under God,” and whether the respondent has the legal right to challenge it on behalf of his daughter, of whom he has only partial custody. For petitioners: Terence Cassidy, Porter, Scott, Weiberg & Delehant, Sacramento, Calif. For respondent United States, in support of petitioners: Theodore Olson, solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent Newdow: Michael Newdow, pro se, Sacramento, Calif. Monday, March 29 Gale Norton, U.S. Secretary of the Interior, et al.v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al. No. 03-101 Certiorari to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether the federal courts have the authority to review a federal agency’s ongoing management of public lands. The case involves off-road vehicle damage to Utah’s Wilderness Areas. For petitioners: Edwin Kneedler, deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Paul Smith, Jenner & Block, Washington, D.C. David Nelson v. Donal Campbell, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al. No. 03-6821 Certiorari to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether a death row inmate, who previously filed a habeas petition, may challenge the procedures of his execution under a civil rights law, or if it is an impermissible second habeas claim. Petitioner David Nelson claims he cannot tolerate the normal procedure for lethal injection because of past intravenous drug use. For petitioner: Bryan Stevenson, executive director, Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, Montgomery, Ala. For respondents: Kevin Newsom, solicitor general, Alabama Attorney General’s Office, Montgomery, Ala. Tuesday, March 30 Jay Johnson v. California No. 03-6539 Certiorari to the California Supreme Court. Question presented: Whether any challenge to an unexplained peremptory strike in jury selection must prove a “more likely than not” racial bias. For petitioner: Stephen Bedrick, Oakland, Calif. (Appointed by the Court.) For respondent: Seth Schalit, supervising deputy attorney general, California Department of Justice, San Francisco. Jose Sosa v. H. Alvarez-Machain, et al. No. 03-339 United States v. Humberto Alvarez-Machain No. 03-485 Certiorari to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether a Mexican doctor can sue the U.S. government and the U.S.-hired bounty hunter who captured him in Mexico for false imprisonment under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Alien Tort Claims Act. For petitioners: Carter Phillips, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, Washington, D.C. For respondents: Paul Hoffman, Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman, Venice, Calif. Wednesday, March 31 Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Suders No. 03-95 Certiorari to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether an employer can be held liable for a work environment that is so hostile it compels an employee to quit. For petitioner: John Knorr III, chief deputy attorney general, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Harrisburg, Pa. For respondent: Donald Bailey, Bailey, Stretton & Ostrowski, Harrisburg, Pa. Marcus Thornton v. United States No. 03-5165 Certiorari to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Question presented: Whether a police officer may search a suspect’s car if the officer initiated contact after the suspect exited the vehicle. For petitioner: Frank Dunham Jr., federal public defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria, Va. For respondent: Gregory Garre, assistant to the solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 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.