US Supreme Court Docket
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).
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 15, 1995
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 11, 2001
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
C & L Entreprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe Of Oklahoma
No. 00-292
Subject:
Arbitration, Immunity, American Indian Law
Question:
- 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?
- 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:
- Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Second Division
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: April 30, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
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:
- 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.
- 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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: October 22, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 18, 2001
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- 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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 3rd Circuit, Filed: March 7, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 29, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- 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:
- 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?
- 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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: April 28, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 21, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
-
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:
- 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?
- 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?
- 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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: November 9, 1999
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Amended: January 24, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 25, 2001
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
-
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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 4th Circuit, Decided: March 4, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 4, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Decided: March 27, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 18, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
-
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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 10th Circuit, Filed: May 2, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 29, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
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:
- Whether Penry's mitigating evidence was within the jury's effective reach under the instructions submitted at
the punishment phase of trial.
- 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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, Revised: July 12, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 4, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- Senseless Punishment by Joanne Mariner.
- "Confusing" Ballots Versus "Confusing" Jury Instructions By Michael C. Dorf.
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:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Decided: September 24, 1999
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 25, 2001
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- Holey Archives: After Tasini, Publishers May Have to Hit the Delete Key By Tom Hentoff.
-
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.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: September 13, 1999
- Oral Argument Transcript From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- United States Supreme Court (Application for Stay), August 29, 2000
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 14, 2001
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
- Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative Features news, announcements, and information on the medical use of marijuana.
- When Compassion Goes Up in Smoke By Sherry F. Colb.
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]