OTHER CASES UP FOR REVIEW

  • 06-560, Avis Budget Group v. Cal. State Teachers’ Retirement System (CA9)

    Whether a secondary actor may be primarily liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for engaging in a “scheme to defraud” with the issuer, even where that secondary actor did not itself participate in making the challenged misstatements or omissions or engage in any act of “manipulation.”



  • 06-639, Detroit International Bridge Co. v. United States (CA6)

    Whether requiring courts to apply the interest rate set in the Declaration of Taking Act, to determine the compensation due when the government delays payment of just compensation for private property taken under the act, violates the just compensation clause and the separation of powers when applying the statutory interest rate would materially undercompensate the landowner.


  • 06-739, Kelley v. Bracewell (CA11)

    Whether a crop bailout payment received by a debtor pursuant to legislation enacted by Congress after the debtor’s filing for bankruptcy, but predicated entirely upon pre-petition events, is the property of the bankruptcy estate.


  • 06-797, U.S. Forest Service v. Earth Land Institute (CA9)

    Whether a preliminary injunction should have been ordered when the court relied on declarations filed by parties in the district court, rather than the administrative record, in order to determine whether respondents had shown a likelihood of success on the merits.


  • 06-837, Old Stone Corp. v. United States (CA Fed)

    Whether the Federal Circuit incorrectly held that the victim of a total contract breach, by making post-breach mitigation efforts, made an “election of remedies” that forfeited its remedy of restitution, where it did not receive and could not expect to receive any post-breach contract performance from the breaching party.


  • 06-839, Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Co. v. Rapides Healthcare System (CA5)

    Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act pre-empts a state law that authorizes an action to collect benefits previously paid to a plan participant and establishes a remedy outside ERISA’s exclusive civil enforcement scheme, because the state law conflicts with the cause of action for benefits set forth in ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B).


  • 06-901, Goetz v. John B. (CA6)

    Whether the prohibition against bias on the part of judicial and quasi-judicial officers applies to a court-appointed special master and experts whose findings of noncompliance with a consent decree are adopted and whose proposed remedial measures are provisionally ordered by the district court.


  • 06-961, Houk v. Joseph (CA6)

    Whether, in granting habeas corpus relief, the 6th Circuit misapplied settled rules that limit its role and authority and erroneously set aside reasonable state court determinations of fact.


  • 06-962, Xerox Corporation Retirement Income Guarantee Plan v. Miller (CA9)

    Whether ERISA permits a pension plan, when calculating an employee’s accrued pension benefit at retirement, to apply an offset for the benefits the employee receives before retirement from other sources by valuing those benefits in the same way as benefits due at retirement.