US Supreme Court Docket

MAIN | cases | docket | decisions | orders | briefs | rules | guides | calendar

Index | October | November | December | January | February | March | April

October 2000 Monday, October 2

GITLITZ v. COMMISSIONER
No. 99-1295

Subject:
Taxes, Income, Cancellation of Debt

Question:
Petitioners are shareholders in an insolvent Subchapter S corporation which obtained a discharge of indebtedness. Income with respect to this cancellation of debt ("COD") was excluded from gross income under 26 U.S.C. § 108(a). The question presented in this case is whether excluded COD income is an item of income within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 1366(a)(1)(A), which increases Petitioners' basis in their S corporation stock pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1367.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP. v. UNITED MINE WORKERS, DIST. 17
No. 99-1038

Subject:
Arbitration, Judicial Review, Drug Testing, Transportation

Question:
Whether the arbitrator's award in this case, which ordered reinstatement (after a three-month suspension) of a commercial truck driver who had twice tested positive for marijuana, should be set aside as contrary to public policy.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, October 3

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMOND
No. 99-1030

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, Automobile Checkpoints

Question:
Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a narcotics-detection dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

GREEN TREE FIN. CORP. v. RANDOLPH
No. 99-1235

Subject:
Federal Arbitration Act, Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act

Question:

  1. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing a lawsuit's underlying claims is a "final decision with respect to an arbitration" appealable under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3).

  2. Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that an arbitration provision that was "silent" on the issue of costs and fees was unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act because the risk that plaintiff "might" be required to bear unknown costs and fees potentially undermined her ability to vindicate statutory rights.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, October 4

FERGUSON v. CITY OF CHARLESTON
No. 99-936

Subject:
Fourth Amendment, Drug Testing, Warrantless Searches, Pregnant Women

Question:
Whether the testing of pregnant women for cocaine usage, and the subsequent reporting of the results to law enforcement constitutes an unconstitutional search or invasion of privacy in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

LEGAL SERVICES CORP. v. VELAZQUEZ
UNITED STATES v. VELAZQUEZ
Nos. 99-603, 99-960

Subject:
First Amendment, Free Speech, Legal Services Corporation, Federal Funds, Welfare Reform

Question:
The question presented is whether the statutory provision permitting recipients of LSC funds to represent individuals seeking relief from a welfare agency only if the relief sought would not amend or change existing law is facially invalid under the First Amendment.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Tuesday, October 10

CLEVELAND v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-804

Subject:
Mail Fraud, Video Poker License, Property

Question:
Whether the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1341, reaches a scheme to obtain a video poker license from the State of Louisiana by means of false representations.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • United States - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

    Amicus - Petitioner
  • National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers [TEXT] [RTF]

ARTUZ, SUPT., GREEN HAVEN v. BENNETT
No. 99-1238

Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Tolling Provision

Question:
Is a state post-conviction application "properly filed" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. section 2244(d)(2), which tolls the one-year statute of limitations for habeas corpus petitions, if it is procedurally barred from review under state law?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Wednesday, October 11

UNIV. OF AL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. GARRETT
No. 99-1240

Subject:
Eleventh Amendment, Sovereign Immunity, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Question:
Do Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., exceed Congress's enforcement authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

BRENTWOOD ACADEMY v. TN SECONDARY SCHOOL
No. 99-901

Subject:
First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, State Action, Civil Rights, School Sports

Question:
Whether an athletic association's regulation of interscholastic athletic competition constitutes state action under the Fourteenth Amendment and activity under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1994 & Supp. III 1997), when the association is controlled by representatives of public schools located in the same State.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

Monday, October 30

LOPEZ v. DAVIS
No. 99-7504

Subject:
Early Release, Voluntary Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, Discretion

Question:
Whether the Bureau of Prisons may exercise its discretion under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e)(2)(B) to deny eligibility for early release from custody, based on the successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program, to the category of prisoners whose current offense is a felony that "involved the carrying, possession, or use of a firearm." 28 C.F.R. 550.58(a)(1)(vi)(B).

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

CENTRAL GREEN v. UNITED STATES
No. 99-859

Subject:
Jurisdiction, Federal Tort Claims Act, Flooding

Question:
Whether 33 U.S.C. 702c, which provides that "[n]o liability of any kind shall attach to or rest upon the United States for any damage from or by floods or flood waters at any place," bars petitioner's tort action arising from property damage sustained as a result of allegedly negligent construction and maintenance of an irrigation canal that is part of a multi-purpose federal flood control project.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • United States - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • United States - Supplemental (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • United States [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Tuesday, October 31

SOLID WASTE AGENCY v. U.S. ARMY CORP. ENGINEERS
No. 99-1178

Subject:
Clean Water Act, Commerce Clause

Question:
Whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers may, consistent with the Clean Water Act and the Commerce Clause, exercise regulatory jurisdiction over a series of permanent and seasonal ponds and small lakes that are used as habitat for numerous species of migratory birds.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties:
  • Petitioner - Petition [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply Brief [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

  • Petitioner [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Respondent [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  • Petitioner - Reply [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]

    Amicus - Petitioner:
  • Cato Institute [PDF]
  • Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America [PDF]
  • The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence [PDF] [RTF] [WP]
  • Defenders of Property Rights [TEXT]

    Amicus - Respondent:
  • Anti-Defamation League et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
  • Dr. Gene Likens et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
  • Environmental Defense et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]
  • State of California et al. [PDF] [OCR-TEXT]

SELING V. YOUNG
No. 99-1185

Subject:
Fifth Amendment, Sexually Violent Predator Statute, Double Jeopardy, Ex Post Facto

Question:
In Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), this Court held that the Kansas law authorizing commitment of sexually violent predators is civil in nature and does not violate the double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses. The Kansas law was modeled on Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute and the two laws are substantially similar. This case presents the following question regarding Washington's Sexually Violent Predator Statute:

Whether an otherwise valid civil statute can be divested of its civil nature and held to violate the double jeopardy and ex post facto clauses because the administrative agency operating the commitment facility fails to provide for treatment and other conditions of confinement mandated by statute at some time during the individual's commitment.

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

FindLaw Career Center

    Select a Job Title


      Post a Job  |  Careers Home

    View More