US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled
November 2002 [Download November 2002 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2001 Docket] Monday, November 4

Pierce County v. Ignacio Guillen, Legal Guardian of Jennifer Guillen and Alma Guillen, Minors, et al.
No. 01-1229

Subject:

Federalism, Preemption, Federal-Aid Highway Act, Federal Privilege, Tenth Amendment

Question:

1. Is 23 U.S.C. § 409, a federal statute which protects certain documents "compiled or collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in federal or state trials, a valid exercise of Congress's power under the supremacy, spending, commerce, or necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution?



2. Do private plaintiffs have standing to assert "states' rights" under the 10th Amendment when their state's legislative and executive branches expressly approve and accept benefits and terms of the federal statute in question?

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Washington, Filed: September 13, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 29, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 14, 2002

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
• United States - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Association of American Railroads (Merits) [PDF]
• Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

David Allen Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
No. 01-7574

Subject:

Double Jeopardy, Death Penalty

Question:

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes imposing a sentence of death in a retrial, when, in the initial trial, a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed as a matter of law after the capital sentencing jury deadlocked and was unable to reach a verdict.
   
   
2. Whether the Due Process Clause prohibits imposing a sentence of death on a defendant who, after being sentenced to life imprisonment as a matter of law following the sentencing jury's inability to reach a verdict, obtained reversal of his conviction on appeal and is convicted again of capital murder in a retrial.

Decisions:

• Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, Filed: November 27, 2000
• Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District (Opinion)
• Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District (Dissent)
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: March 18, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 14, 2002

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondent (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]

Tuesday, November 5

Gary Albert Ewing v. California
No. 01-6978

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General of California, et al. v. Leandro Andrade
No. 01-1127

Subject:

Three Strikes Law, Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Question:

1. Whether California's three-strikes law, providing for a twenty-five years to life prison term for a third strike conviction, violates the Eighth Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a defendant whose third strike conviction is for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction.
   
   
2. Whether, in light of the Supreme Courts existing jurisprudence concerning the Eighth Amendment and proportionality in noncapital cases, the judgment of the California Court of Appeal, holding Andrade's consecutive twenty-five years to life sentences for convictions on two counts of petty theft with a prior, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by this Court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
   
   
3. Whether the Ninth Circuit or the Fourth Circuit is correct, concerning the necessity for a habeas court analyzing a claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, to first decide if the state court's determination was erroneous before deciding whether the determination was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit (Andrade), Filed: October 21, 1999
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 1, 2002
• United States Supreme Court (Ewing v. California), Decided: March 5, 2003
• United States Supreme Court (Lockyer v. Andrade), Decided: March 5, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet (01-1127) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Docket Sheet (01-6978) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript (01-1127)
• Oral Argument Transcript (01-6978)
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

parties
• Petitioner Gary Albert Ewing (No. 01-6978) (Petition) [TEXT]
  
  
• Respondent Leandro Andrade (No. 01-1127) (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner Gary Albert Ewing (No. 01-6978)
• Families Against Mandatory Minimums (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent State of California (No. 01-6978)
• California District Attorneys Association (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• California Justice Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Alabama, Indiana, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner Bill Lockyer, et al. (No. 01-1127)
• California District Attorneys Association (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• California Justice Legal Foundation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent Andrade (No. 01-1127)
• Donald Ray Hill (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]

Wednesday, November 6

Norfolk & Western Railway Company v. Freeman Ayers, et al.
No. 01-963

Subject:

Asbestos, Railroads, Emotional Distress, Federal Employers' Liability Act

Question:

1. Was it error for the court below, in conflict with decisions of federal courts of appeals, state supreme courts, and prevailing common-law principles, to award emotional distress damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act to retired employees who alleged workplace exposure to asbestos and other dusts, but who presented no evidence of physical manifestation or other corroboration of injury related to their alleged fear of cancer?
   
   
2. Was it error for the court below, in conflict with decisions of federal courts of appeals, state supreme courts, and evolving common-law principles, not to apportion damages under the FELA among tortfeasors?

Decisions:

• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 1, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 10, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• American Insurance Association (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Chamber of Commerce of the United States (Merits) [PDF]
• Coalition for Asbestos Justice, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
• Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]

Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. Ricky Bell, Warden
No. 01-9094

Subject:

Death Penalty, Effective Assistance of Counsel

Question:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits, that every Rule 60(b) Motion constitutes a prohibited "second or successive" habeas petition as a matter of law.
   
   
2. Whether a court of appeals abuses its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when the failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever receiving any adjudication of his claims on the merits.

Supplemental Questions:

Did the Sixth Circuit have jurisdiction to review the district court's order, dated November 27, 2001, transferring Petitioner's Rule 60(b) Motion to the Sixth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631? Does this Court have jurisdiction to review the Sixth Circuit's order, dated February 11, 2002, denying leave to file a second habeas corpus petition?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Filed: September 13, 2000
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 22, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: October 24, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Dismissed: December 10, 2002

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondent (Petition) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF]
• Respondent (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioner - Supplemental Brief [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• Former Prosecutors James F. Neal, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• National Association of Criminal Defense Counsel (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondent
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• States of Alabama, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Tuesday, November 12

United States v. Francisco J. Recio, et al.
No. 01-1184

Subject:

Conspiracy to Possess With Intent To Distribute Controlled Substances, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A), and 21 U.S.C. 846, Frustration of Conspiracy's Objectives

Question:

Whether a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Amended Opinion Filed: July 31, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 28, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 21, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

parties
• Petitioner (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
• Petitioner - Reply (Petition)[PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Petitioner (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioner
• American Center for Law and Justice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Victor Moseley, et al. v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al.
No. 01-1015

Subject:

Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Economic Injury

Question:

1. Whether a plaintiff seeking an injunction under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1), must establish present dilution or whether a showing of a likelihood of future dilution is sufficient.
   
   
2. Whether a showing that consumers mentally associate the defendant's mark with the plaintiff's mark because of their similarity is sufficient to establish actionable dilution.
   
   
3. Whether a showing that the defendant's mark has caused economic harm to the plaintiff is necessary to establish actionable dilution.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: October 21, 1999
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: April 15, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 4, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• Professor Malla Pollack (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
• Public Knowledge, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF]
• American Intellectual Property Law Association (Merits) [PDF]
• Best Western International, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Intel Corporation (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Intellectual Property Law Professors (Merits) [PDF]
• Intellectual Property Owners Association (Merits) [PDF]
• International Trademark Association (Merits) [PDF]
• Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc., et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]

Wednesday, November 13

Delbert W. Smith and Bruce M. Botelho v. John Doe I, et al.
No. 01-729

Subject:

Megan's Law, Internet Registries, Sex Offenders

Question:

Does Alaska's Sex Offender Registration Act, on its face or as implemented, impose punishment for the purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause, as applied to sex offenders whose crimes were committed before the statute's enactment?

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit, Filed: August 8, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: February 19, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Order: June 17, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 5, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

Parties
• Petitioners (Petition) [PDF]
• Respondents (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• Petitioners (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
• Petitioners - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
  
  Amicus - Petitioners
• States of California, Alabama, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
  
  
• The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
• States of California, Colorado, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• American Civil Liberties Union, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
• Electronic Privacy Information Center (Merits) [PDF]
• Public Defender of New Jersey, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. John Doe, et al.
No. 01-1231

Subject:

Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Sex Offender Registry

Question:

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents a State from listing convicted sex offenders in a publicly disseminated registry without first affording such offenders individualized hearings on their current dangerousness.

Decisions:

• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Filed: October 19, 2001
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 20, 2002
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 5, 2003

Resources:

• Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Oral Argument Transcript
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

parties
• Respondents (Merits) [PDF]
  
  Amicus - petitioners
• United States (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  
• Center for Community Interest (Merits) [TEXT]
• Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
• Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
• United States (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
  
  Amicus - Respondents
• Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Sept 2003 | Unscheduled

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