US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

Unscheduled
October 2004 Term

Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

 

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
No. 04-480

Subject:

    Copyright Law, Internet-Based "File Sharing"
Question:
    Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners MGM Studios, et al.:

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents StreamCast Networks, Inc., et al.:
Cindy Ann Cohn
Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco, CA


Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
No. 04-5928

Subject:

    Mexican Nationals, International Court of Justice, Vienna Convention, Death Penalty
Questions:

The United States and Mexico are party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Acting on the consent set forth in the Optional Protocol, Mexico initiated proceedings in the International Court of Justice seeking relief for the violation of Petitioners Vienna Convention rights. On March 31, 2004, the Court rendered a judgment that adjudicated Petitioners rights. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.) , 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31). The Avena Judgment built on the Courts rulings in LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27), an earlier case also brought under the Optional Protocol.

On Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that precedents of this Court and its own barred it from complying with the LaGrand and Avena Judgments.
  1. In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines?

  2. In a case brought by a foreign national of a State party to the Vienna Convention, should a court in the United States give effect to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Medellin:

Donald Francis Donovan
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
New York, NY
For Respondent Dretke:
Gena Bunn
Assistant Attorney General
Austin, TX


Ulysses Tory, et al. v. Johnnie L. Cochran
No. 03-1488

Subject:

    First Amendment, Free Speech, Permanent Injunction against Speech, Defamation
Question:
    Whether a permanent injunction as a remedy in a defamation action, preventing all future speech about an admitted public figure, violates the First Amendment.
Decisions:
  • Court of Appeal of California, Unpublished Opinion Filed: October 29, 2003
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: September 28, 2004

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Tory, et al.:

Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
For Respondent Cochran:
Jonathan B. Cole
Sherman Oaks, CA


Jon B. Cutter, et al. v. Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
No. 03-9877

Subject:

Question:
    Whether Congress violated the Establishment Clause by enacting the RReligious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1 through 2000cc-5, which requires state officials to lift unnecessary governmental burdens imposed on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons under their control.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Cutter, et al.:

David Goldberger
Ohio State University College of Law
Columbus,OH
For Respondents Wilkinson, et al.:
Douglas R. Cole
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
For Respondent United States:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


 

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