US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

February 2004
[Download February 2004 Argument Calendar PDF ]
[Click here for 2002 Docket ]
Monday, February 23

Household Credit Services, Inc. v. Sharon R. Pfennig
No. 02-857

Subject:

Question:
    Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account (15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)) rather than as a "finance charge" (15 U.S.C. 1605(a)), within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] (2.6 MB)

  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] (1.4 MB)
  • Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

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

  • William P. Schlenk (Merits) [PDF]
  • United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Randall C. Scarborough v. Anthony Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
No. 02-1657

Subject:

Question:
    Whether, or in what circumstances, an applicant for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is barred from obtaining a fee award by the Act's 30-day statute of limitations solely because the applicant's timely-filed fee application did not initially allege that the position of the government in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, February 24 Edith Jones, et al., etc. v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
No. 02-1205

Subject:

    Racial Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, Statutes of Limitations
Question:
    Does the four-year "catch-all" limitations period of 28 U.S.C. 1658 apply to new causes of action created by Public Law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. 1981(a) and (b)?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. George E. Banks
No. 02-1603

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Retroactivity, Death Penalty, Mitigating Evidence, Criminal Law
Question:
  1. Does this Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988) create a new rule of law that cannot be applied retroactively to award sentencing relief to a prisoner whose conviction became final before Mills was announced?

  2. If Mills applies retroactively, where a state supreme court has rejected a Mills challenge because neither the trial court's instructions nor the verdict form advised the jury that it must be unanimous as to the existence of mitigating circumstances and, to the contrary, made clear that unanimity was required only to find aggravating circumstances and to impose a sentence of death, is that decision a reasonable application of this Court's precedent?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioners (Petition} [PDF] (3.4 MB)

  • Petitioners (Merits} [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits} [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Merits} [PDF]

    Amicus - Petitioners
  • Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Petition) [PDF]

Wednesday, February 25 United States v. Manuel Flores-Montano
No. 02-1794

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Reasonable Suspicion, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's fuel tank for contraband.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]

  • Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
  • Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Republic of Austria, et al. v. Maria V. Altmann
No. 03-13

Subject:

Question:
    Does the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(3), afford jurisdiction over claims against foreign states based on conduct that occurred before the United States adopted the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity in 1952?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
  • Petitioners (Petition) [PDF] (4.7 MB)

  • Petitioners (Merits) [PDF]
  • Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
  • Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF]

 

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

 

To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

 

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More