US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

January 2006
[Download January 2006 Argument Calendar PDF ]
[Click here for 2004 Docket ]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Monday, January 9 Booker T. Hudson, Jr. v. Michigan
No. 04-1360

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Exclusionary Rule, Seizure, Inevitable Discovery, "Knock and Announce"
Question:
    Does the inevitable discovery doctrine create a per se exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence seized after a Fourth Amendment "knock and announce" violation, as the Seventh Circuit and the Michigan Supreme Court have held, or is evidence subject to suppression after such violations, as the Sixth and Eighth Circuits, the Arkansas Supreme Court, and the Maryland Court of Appeals have held?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Hudson:

David A. Moran
Wayne State University Law School
Detroit, MI
For Respondent Michigan:
Timothy A. Baughman
Wayne County Prosecutor's Office
Detroit, MI


Tuesday, January 10

Michael Hartman, Frank Kormann, Pierce McIntosh, Norman Robbins, and Robert Edwards v. William G. Moore, Jr.
No. 04-1495

Subject:

    Civil Rights Actions, Retaliatory Prosecution, First Amendment
Question: Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Hartman, et al.:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondent Moore:
Paul Michael Pohl
Jones Day
Pittsburgh, PA


Texaco Inc. v. Fouad N. Dagher, et al.
No. 04-805

Shell Oil Company v. Fouad N. Dagher, et al.
No. 04-814

Subject:

    Antitrust, Sherman Act, Joint Ventures, Price Setting
Questions:
    Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, et al., No. 04-805
    Whether it is per se illegal concerted action under Section I of the Sherman Act for an economically integrated joint venture to set the selling price of its own products.
    Shell Oil Company v. Dagher, et al., No. 04-814
    Whether it is per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which the joint venture sells its products.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Texaco:

Craig E. Stewart
Jones Day
San Francisco, CA
For Petitioner Shell Oil:
Ronald L. Olson
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondents Dagher, et al.:
Daniel R. Shulman
Gray Plant Mooty
Minneapolis, MN


Wednesday, January 11

Jenifer Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, dba The Moonlight Cafe
No. 04-944

Subject:

    Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Employment Discrimination, Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Question:
    Section 701(b) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies the Title VII prohibition against employment discrimination to employers with fifteen or more employees. Does this provision limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of a Title VII claim?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Arbaugh:

Jeffrey A. Schwartz
Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A.
New Orleans, LA
For Respondent Y & H Corp.:
Brett John Prendergast
New Orleans, LA



Paul Gregory House v. Ricky Bell, Warden
No. 04-8990

Subject:

    Actual Innocence, Exhaustion of State Remedies, "Truly Persuasive Showing," Habeas Corpus, Criminal Law
Questions:
  1. Did the majority below err in applying this Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo to hold that Petitioner's compelling new evidence, though presenting at the very least a colorable claim of actual innocence, was as a matter of law insufficient to excuse his failure to present that evidence before the state courts—merely because he had failed to negate each and every item of circumstantial evidence that had been offered against him at the original trial?

  2. What constitutes a "truly persuasive showing of actual innocence" pursuant to Herrera v. Collins sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner House:

Stephen M. Kissinger
Knoxville, TN
For Respondent Bell:
Jennifer L. Smith
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Nashville, TN



Tuesday, January 17

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
No. 04-1581

Subject:

    Elections, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 2002 (BCRA), Corporate Disbursements, Electioneering Communications
Questions:
  1. Whether as-applied challenges are permitted to the prohibition on corporate disbursements for electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. 441b after McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

  2. If so, whether the prohibition on electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, and particularly

    1. the three particular grass-roots lobbying broadcast communications sponsored by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. here and/or

    2. grass-roots lobbying communications generally, as carefully defined,


    with any communications to be funded either from a general corporate account or, alternatively, from a separate bank account to which only qualified individuals may donate, as defined in 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(E).
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Appellant WRTL:

James Bopp Jr.
Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
Terre Haute, IN
For Appellee FEC:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC



Gary Kent Jones v. Linda K. Flowers, et al.
No. 04-1477

Subject:

    Tax Sale, Property Forfeiture, Notice Requirements, Due Process
Question:
    When mailed notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does due process require the government to make any additional effort to locate the owner before taking the property?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Jones:

Michael T. Kirkpatrick
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC
For Respondent Flowers:
A. J. Kelly
Little Rock, AR



Wednesday, January 18

United States v. Jeffrey Grubbs
No. 04-1414

Subject:

    Fourth Amendment, Search, Anticipatory Warrant, Suprression of Evidence, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence when officers conduct a search under an anticipatory warrant after the warrant's triggering condition is satisfied, but the triggering condition is not set forth either in the warrant itself or in an affidavit that is both incorporated into the warrant and shown to the person whose property is being searched.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner United States:

Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondent Grubbs:
Mark J. Reichel
Assistant Federal Defender
Sacramento, CA



Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Shadi Dabit
No. 04-1371

Subject:

    Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), Preemption, State Law Class Actions, Securities Law
Question:
    Whether, as the Seventh Circuit held earlier this month and in direct conflict with the decision below, SLUSA preempts state law class action claims based upon allegedly fraudulent statements or omissions brought solely on behalf of persons who were induced thereby to hold or retain (and not purchase or sell) securities.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Merrill Lynch:

Jay B. Kasner
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
New York, NY
For Respondent Dabit:
William B. Federman
Federman & Sherwood
Oklahoma City, OK



 

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