US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan| Feb | Mar| Apr| Unscheduled

January 2002 Monday, January 7

Tracy Ragsdale v. Wolverine Worldwide, Inc.
No. 00-6029

Subject:

    Family and Medical Leave Act, Employee Notification, 12 Week Leave
Question:
    Whether the Secretary has acted permissibly in providing by regulation that (with certain exceptions) employer-provided leave does not count against the Act's 12-week entitlement until the employer notifies the employee of its designation as FMLA leave.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • National Employment Lawyers Association [PDF] [RTF]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

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

  • Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. [PDF]
  • Society for Human Resource Management [PDF]

Tahoe-Sierra Reservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, et al.
No. 00-1167

Subject:

    Fifth Amendment, Takings Clause, Land Development, Temporary Moratorium
Question:
    Whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Association of Small Property Owners et al. [PDF]
  • Washington Legal Foundation [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • American Planning Association et al. [PDF]
  • Council of State Governments et al. [PDF]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Tuesday, January 8

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., et al.
No. 00-1543

Subject:

    Patents, Doctrine of Equivalents
Question:
  1. Whether every claim-narrowing amendment designed to comply with any provision of the Patent Act -- including those provisions not related to prior art -- automatically creates prosecution history estoppel regardless of the reason for the amendment; and

  2. Whether the finding of prosecution history estoppel completely bars the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

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

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association (Petition) [PDF]
  • Association of Patent Law Firms (Petition) [PDF]
  • Chiron Corporation et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Petition) [PDF]
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association (Petition) [PDF]
  • Intellectual Property Creators [PDF]
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  • Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company et al. (Petition) [PDF]

  • American Bar Association [PDF]
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association [PDF]
  • Asta Medica Aktiengesellschaft [PDF]
  • Bose Corporation [PDF]
  • Celltech Group PLC [PDF]
  • Chiron Corporation [PDF]
  • Houston Intellectual Property Law Association [PDF]
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association [PDF]
  • Fédération Internationale des Conseils en Propriété Industrielle [PDF]
  • Intellectual Property Creators et al. [PDF]
  • Litton Systems, Inc. [PDF]
  • Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company et al. [PDF]
  • National Bar Association [PDF]
  • National Intellectual Property Law Institute [PDF]
  • Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association [PDF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Applera Corporation (Petition) [PDF]
  • International Business Machines Corporation et al. (Petition) [PDF]

  • Consumer Project on Technology [PDF]
  • Intel Corporation et al. [PDF]

    Amicus - Neither Party:
  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America [PDF]
  • Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago [PDF]
  • Sean Patrick Suiter [PDF]
  • Vincent P. Tassinari [PDF]
  • Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation et al. - Reversal [PDF]
  • United States - Vacatur and Remand [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Leonard Edelman v. Lynchburg College
No. 00-1072

Subject:

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Employment Discrimination, Statute of Limitations
Question:
    The scheme of redress for employment discrimination under TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, requires a complainant to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within a certain time after the conduct alleged, 78 Stat. 259, 42 U.S.C. 2000e5(e)(1) (1994ed.), and to affirm or swear that the allegations are true, 2000e5(b). The issue here is the validity of an EEOC regulation permitting an otherwise timely filer to verify a charge after the time for filing has expired.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF]

Wednesday, January 9

Cornelius P. Young, et ux. v. United States
No. 00-1567

Subject:

    Bankruptcy, Federal Income Taxes
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Abner Morgan Jr.
No. 00-1614

Subject:

    Employment Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation, Title VII, Statute of Limitations
Question:
    Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a plaintiff may recover under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., for unlawful employment practices that are outside the statutory charge-filing period, if the practices were "sufficiently related" to unlawful practices that occurred within the period.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Equal Employment Advisory Council [PDF]
  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • The Impact Fund et al. [TEXT]

Monday, January 14

United States v. Sandra L. Craft
No. 00-1831

Subject:

    Federal Tax Lien, Tenancy by the Entirety
Question:
    Whether the federal tax lien that arises by operation of law in “all property and rights to property” of a delinquent taxpayer (26 U.S.C. 6321) attaches to the rights of that taxpayer in property held in a tenancy by the entirety.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Correction Officer Porter v. Ronald Nussle
No. 00-853

Subject:

    Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Eighth Amendment, Assault or Excessive Use of Physical Force, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Question:
    Whether the exhaustion provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a) (Supp. V 1999), requires an inmate to exhaust available administrative remedies before filing an action alleging a use of excessive force by a correction officer.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

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

Tuesday, January 15

Hoffman Plastic Compound, Inc., v. National Labor Relations Board
No. 00-1595

Subject:

    Unions, Unfair Labor Practice, Undocumented Alien, Backpay
Question:
    [Question Presented]
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Akos Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
No. 00-1853

Subject:

    Employment Discrimination, Age Discrimination, National Origin Discrimination, Pleading Standard
Question:
    Whether a complaint in an employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., must plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • United States et al. [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Center for Individual Freedom [PDF]

Wednesday, January 16

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Debra Moran, et al.
No. 00-1021

Subject:

Question:
    Whether Section 4-10 of the Illinois Health Maintenance Organization Act is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security, v. Cleveland B. Walton
No. 00-1937

Subject:

    Social Security, Disability Benefits
Question:
  1. Whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act if he has a physical or mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last at least 12 months, but his inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of that impairment has not lasted or cannot be expected to last 12 months.

  2. Whether a claimant under Title II may be under a disability and entitled to a "trial work period" if, at the time his disability insurance benefits claim is adjudicated, his impairment no longer prevents him from performing substantial gainful activity.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More