US Supreme Court Docket

Index | October | November | December | January | February | March | April

March 2001 Monday, March 19, 2001

Kansas v. Colorado
105, Orig.

Subject:
Arkansas River Compact

Question:

  • Whether a money damages remedy based, in part, on the aggregate losses incurred by past, present, and future Kansas water users due to Colorado's depletion of stateline flows of the Arkansas River violates the Eleventh Amendment. (Colorado Exception No. 1).

  • Whether the Special Master erred in recommending that a money damages remedy include prejudgment interest beginning in 1969. (Colorado Exceptions Nos. 2 & 3; Kansas Exception).
Decisions: Resources: Briefs:

C & L Entreprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe Of Oklahoma
No. 00-292

Subject:
Arbitration, Immunity, American Indian Law

Question:

  1. Is an arbitration agreement, contained in a contract executed by an Indian tribe for commercial construction outside of reservation or trust land boundaries, enforceable by the proceedings, including suit in state court, provided for in the arbitration agreement?

  2. Where the arbitration agreement provides:
    The award rendered by the arbitrator or arbitrators shall be final, and judgment may be entered upon it in accor-dance with applicable law in any court having jurisdiction thereof...,

    does execution of such an arbitration agreement constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from a state court suit against the Indian tribe to enforce an arbitration award resulting from such arbitration proceedings?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • State of Texas et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Tuesday, March 20, 2001

Donald Saucier v. Elliot M. Katz and In Defense of Animals
No. 99-1977

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Excessive Force, Qualified Immunity

Question:

  1. Whether, in a case alleging the use of constitutionally unreasonable force, the test for qualified immunity and the reasonableness test under the Fourth Amendment are identical, such that a finding of unreasonable force under the Fourth Amendment necessarily precludes the officer from being entitled to qualified immunity.

  2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that petitioner Saucier's use of force to detain respondent, which consisted of carrying respondent from the crowd to a waiting van and pushing him inside without injuring him, so clearly exceeded the amount of force permitted by the Fourth Amendment as to warrant denial of qualified immunity.

Decisions:

Resources: Briefs:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police [PDF]

Timothy Booth v. C.O. Churner, et al.
No. 99-1964

Subject:
Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

Question:

    Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a), as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides that a prisoner must exhaust "such administrative remedies as are available" before bringing a federal action, requires a prisoner seeking only monetary damages are not available under the applicable administrative process.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • Petitioner [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) et al. [PDF]
  • Association of the Bar of the City of New York [PDF]
  • Brennan Center for Justice et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • 50 States and Territories [PDF]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Wednesday, March 21, 2001

The Wharf (Holdings) Limited, et al. v. United International Holdings, Inc., et al.
No. 00-347

Subject:
Securities Law, Oral Contracts, Stock Options

Question:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and S.E.C. Rule 1Ob-5 apply to disputes over the ownership of securities where there is no claim that financial information was misrepresented or not disclosed?

  2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Section 10(b) and Rule 1Ob-5 apply where plaintiffs' only claim seeks damages for nonperformance of an alleged unenforceable oral option?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Securities Exchange Commission [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Nevada, et al. v. Floyd Hicks, et al.
No. 99-1994

Subject:
American Indian Law, Jurisdiction, Immunity

Question:

  1. Does the sovereign immunity of the State of Nevada, or the state-law immunity of its officers, bar tribal court jurisdiction in actions alleging tribal-law claims and claims based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individually-named state officials, for official actions taken in Indian country with express permission of a tribal judge?

  2. Is a decision on the question of tribal court jurisdiction over state officials properly bifurcated, with consideration of the tribal court's jurisdiction separated from, and antecedent to, a decision on the officials' claims of sovereign and qualified immunity?

  3. Does the rule of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), creating a presumption against tribal court jurisdiction over non-members, apply to these lawsuits, and if so does it permit them?

Decisions:

Resources: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • State of Montana et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • United States - Affirmance [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Monday, March 26, 2001

United Dominion Industries, Inc. v. United States
No. 00-157

Subject:
Tax, Affiliated Companies, Product Liability Loss Deductions

Question:
Section 172(b)(1)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 allows a taxpayer with a "product liability loss," as defined in section 172(j)(1), to carry that loss backup to a maximum of 10 years from the year in which the loss is Incurred, to be deducted from income in the earlier year. The issue in this case is whether, in the case of an affiliated group of corporations filing a consolidated federal income tax return, a product liability loss is determined on a consolidated basis, as the petitioner contends, or on some type of a separate company-by-company basis, as the respondent contends.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Association of Manufacturers et al. [PDF]

George Duncan, Superintendant, Great Meadow Correctional Facility v. Sherman Walker
No. 00-121

Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)

Question:

    Whether a prior federal habeas corpus petition is an "application for State post-conviction or other collateral review" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2242(d)(2), which provides that the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas corpus petitions set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA") is tolled during the pendency of such an application.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Respondent [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [PDF] [TEXT]
  • State of Massachusetts et al. [PDF]

Tuesday, March 27, 2001

Atkinson Trading Company, Inc. v. Joe Shirley, Jr., et al.
No. 00-454

Subject:
Taxation, Native Americans, Reservations

Question:
Whether an Indian Tribe may tax a transaction occurring between two non-Indians on fee land within the reservation?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Association of American Railroads [PDF]
  • Interstate Natural Gas Association [PDF]
  • Proper Economic Resource Management, Inc. [PDF]
  • Roberta Bugenig et al. [PDF]
  • State of South Dakota et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Johnny Paul Penry v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
No. 00-6677

Subject:
Death Penalty, Mental Retardation

Question:

  1. Whether Penry's mitigating evidence was within the jury's effective reach under the instructions submitted at the punishment phase of trial.

  2. Whether a report from a defense-requested, court-ordered psychiatric evaluation regarding an unrelated prior offense could be used by the State to rebut psychiatric evidence introduced by Penry at both phases of the trial.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Respondent [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Association on Mental Retardation et al. [PDF]
  • International Association for the Scientific Study of Intellectual Disabilities et al. [PDF]
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation [TEXT]

Wednesday, March 28, 2001

New York Times Company, Inc., et al. v. Jonathan Tasini, et al.
No. 00-201

Subject:
Intellectual Property, Copyrights, Collective Works, Electronic Databases

Question:
Are reproduction and distribution of a periodical in electronic form, as well as in print, privileged under Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act or does electronically publishing the same content infringe upon the copyrights held by contributing freelance authors?

Decisions:

Resources: Briefs:
    Parties:
  • Petitioner [PDF] [RTF]
  • Respondent Tasini et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • Respondent Garson et al. [PDF] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Advance Publications, Inc. et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • Ken Burns et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • National Geographic Society [PDF] [RTF]
  • Software & Information Industry Association et al. [PDF] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Library Association et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • The Authors Guild et al. [PDF] [RTF]
  • International Federation of Journalists [PDF] [RTF]
  • Ellen Schrecker et al. [PDF] [WP] [RTF]

    Amicus - Neither:
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association [PDF]

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones
No. 00-151

Subject:
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Marijuana, Medical Necessity Defense

Question:

    Whether the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., forcloses a "medical necessity" defense to the Act's prohibition against manufacturing and distributing marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent (Petition) [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Appendix (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent [PDF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Civil Liberties Union et al. [PDF] [TEXT]
  • American Public Health Association et al. [PDF]
  • Sheriff Mark N. Dion et al. [PDF]
  • Edward Neil Brudridge et al. [PDF]
  • State of California [PDF]
  • California Medical Association et al. [PDF]
  • Marijuana Policy Project et al. [PDF]
  • National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) et al. [PDF]

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More