Josue Leocal v. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney Gen., et al.
No. 03-583
Subject:
Whether, in the absence of a mens rea of at least recklessness with respect to the active application of force against another, DUI with serious bodily injury is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16 that constitutes an "aggravated felony" under 101 of the INA?
Resources:
J. Sedwick Sollers IIIFor Respondents Ashcroft, et al.:
King & Spalding LLP
Washington, DC
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Phil Crawford, Interim Field Office Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., v. Sergio S.
Martinez
No. 03-878
Daniel Benitez v. Robert A. Wallis, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service
No. 03-7434
Subject:
Resources:
Theodore OlsonFor Respondent Martinez:
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Christine Stebbins DahlFor Petitioner Benitez:
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Portland, OR
John Stewart Mills
Mills & Carlin
Jacksonville, FL
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. William D. Dotson,
et al.
No. 03-287
Subject:
- When a prisoner invokes 1983 to challenge parole proceedings, does Heck v. Humphrey's favorable termination requirement apply where success by the prisoner on the claim would result only in a new parole hearing and not necessarily guarantee earlier release from prison?
- Does a federal court judgment ordering a new parole hearing "necessarily imply the invalidity of" the decision at the previous parole hearing for purposes of Heck v. Humphrey?
Resources:
Douglas R. ColeFor Respondents Dotson, et al.:
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
Robert S. Walker
John Q. Lewis
Jones Day
Cleveland, OH
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., et al.
No. 02-1028
Subject:
Resources:
Carter G. PhillipsFor Respondents James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd, et al.:
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Michael F. Sturley
Austin, TX
Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Aviall Services, Inc.
No. 02-1192
Subject:
Resources:
William Bradford ReynoldsFor Respondent Aviall Services, Inc.:
Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP
Washington, DC
Richard O. Faulk
Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
Houston, TX
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impressions, Inc., et al.
No. 03-409
Subject:
Resources:
Michael MachatFor Respondents Lasting Impression, Inc., et al.:
Beverly Hills, CA
Charles C.H. Wu
Wu & Cheung, LLP
Irvine, CA
John F. Kowalski, Judge, 26th Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan, et al. v. John C. Tesmer, et al.
No. 03-407
Subject:
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee a right to an appointed appellate attorney in a discretionary first appeal of an indigent criminal defendant convicted by a guilty plea?
- Do attorneys have third-party standing on behalf of potential future indigent criminal defendants to make a constitutional challenge to a state statute prohibiting appointment of appellate counsel in discretionary first appeals following convictions by guilty pleas where the federal courts properly abstained from hearing the claims of indigent criminal defendants themselves?
Resources:
Thomas L. CaseyFor Respondents Tesmer, et al.:
State Solicitor General
Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI
Mark GranzottoFor Respondent Kolenda:
Royal Oak, MI
Judy E. Bregman
Bregman & Welch
Grand Haven, MI
Koons Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. v. Bradley Nigh
No. 03-377
Subject:
Resources:
Donald B. AyerFor Respondent Nigh:
Jones Day
Washington, DC
A. Hugo Blankingship
Blankingship & Associates, P.C.
Washington, DC
Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center v. Christopher Simmons
No. 03-633
Subject:
- Once this Court holds that a particular punishment is not "cruel and unusual" and thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, can a lower court reach a contrary decision based on its own analysis of evolving standards?
- Is the imposition of the death penalty on a person who commits a murder at age seventeen "cruel and unusual," and thus barred by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Resources:
Stephen D. HawkeFor Respondent Simmons:
Assistant Attorney General
Jefferson City, MO
Jennifer Herndon
St. Louis, MO
Keyse G. Jama v. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
No. 03-674
Subject:
Resources:
Jeffrey J. KeyesFor Respondent INS:
Briggs and Morgan, P.A.
Minneapolis, MN
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Willard Stewart v. Dutra Construction Company
No. 03-814
Subject:
Resources:
David B. KaplanFor Respondent Dutra Construction Co.:
The Kaplan/Bond Group
Boston, MA
Harvey Weiner
Peabody & Arnold
Boston, MA
Garrison S. Johnson v. James Gomez, et al.
No. 03-636
Subject:
Resources:
Bert H. DeixlerFor Respondents Gomez, et al.:
Proskauer, Rose, LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Sara E. Turner
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
State of Florida v. Joe Elton Nixon
No. 03-931
Subject:
- applied an incorrect standard, contrary to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685 (2002) and Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 120 S.Ct. 1029 (2000), by finding defense counsel ineffective per se under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) despite having found counsel's strategy not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt but to vigorously contest the sentence in the defendant's best interest and reasonably calculated to avoid a death sentence, and
- erred in concluding that Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) prohibited trial counsel from adopting a strategy, after fully informing his client, without objection, not to contest overwhelming evidence of guilt to protect the best interest of his client in contesting the appropriateness of imposing the death penalty.
Resources:
Carolyn M. SnurkowskiFor Respondent Nixon:
Assistant Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL
Eric M. Freedman
New York, NY
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, et al. v. Tommy G. Thompson, U.S. Secretary of
Health and Human Services, et al.
No. 02-1472
Tommy G. Thompson, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Cherokee Nation
of Oklahoma
No. 03-853
Subject:
- Whether the federal government can repudiate, without liability, express contractual commitments for which it has received valuable consideration, either by spending down discretionary agency appropriations otherwise available to pay its contracts, or simply by changing the law and the contracts retroactively.
- Whether government contract payment rights that are contingent on "the availability of appropriations" vest when an agency receives a lump-sum appropriation that is legally available to pay the contracts as is the law of the Federal Circuit under Blackhawk Heating or is the government's liability calculated only at the end of the year after the agency has spent its appropriations on other activities, as the Tenth Circuit ruled below.
- Whether the ISDA requires the Secretary to pay contract support costs associated with carrying out self-determination contracts with the Indian Health Service, where appropriations were otherwise insufficient to fully fund those costs and would require reprogramming funds needed for noncontractable, inherently federal functions such as having an Indian Health Service.
- Whether Section 314 of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. No.105-277, 112 Stat. 2681- 288, bars respondent from recovering its contract support costs.
Resources:
Lloyd Benton MillerFor Tommy Thompson:
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse,
Endreson & Perry, LLP
Washington, DC
Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Gary S. Small v. United States
No. 03-750
Subject:
(g) . . . for any personIn the instant matter, Petitioner's only conviction occurred in Okinawa, Japan, and it was this Japanese conviction that served as the predicate felony in this 922(g)(1) prosecution. The Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment arguing that foreign felonies were not intended to count as the term "in any court" means any court in the United States. The motion was denied. While the Third Circuit's affirmance of the lower court is consistent with a 1989 decision of the Fourth Circuit and a 1986 decision of the Sixth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit in 2000 and the Second Circuit, on August 27, 2003, held that foreign convictions do not count. Consequently, a clear conflict exists among the five Circuit Courts which have addressed the issue.
(1) who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year:
. . .
to possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm.
Resources:
Paul D. BoasFor Respondent United States:
Pittsburgh, PA
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. John W. Banks, II
No. 03-892
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Sigitas J. Banaitis
No. 03-907
Subject:
Resources:
Theodore OlsonFor Respondent Banks:
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Russell R. YoungFor Respondent Banaitis:
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw
Chicago, IL
Philip N. Jones
Duffy, Kekel, Jones & Bernard
Portland, OR
Azel P. Smith, et al. v. City of Jackson, Mississippi, et
al.
No. 03-1160
Subject:
Resources:
Thomas C. GoldsteinFor Respondent City of Jackson, Miss., et al.:
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC 20016
Glen D. Nager
Jones Day
Washington, DC
David B. Pasquantino, et al. v. United States No. 03-725
Subject:
Resources:
Laura W. BrillFor Respondent United States:
Irell & Manella, LLP
Los Angeles, CA
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
State of Illinois v. Roy I. Caballes
No. 03-923
Subject:
Resources:
Gary Scott FeinermanFor Respondent Caballes:
State Solicitor General
Chicago, IL
Ralph E. Meczyk
Law Office of Ralph E. Meczyk
Chicago, IL
Gerald Devenpeck, et al. v. Jerome Anthony
Alford
No. 03-710
Subject:
Under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness test, an arrest is deemed "reasonable" if there is probable cause to believe that a violation of law has occurred. Two judicial circuits find an arrest reasonable if, based on an objective assessment by a reasonable officer, there is probable cause to arrest for any offense. On the other hand, at least five judicial circuits find an arrest to be reasonable only if there is probable cause to arrest for crimes "closely related" to the crime or crimes articulated by the arresting officer. This case presents the following questions:Decisions:
- Does an arrest violate the Fourth Amendment when a police officer has probable cause to make an arrest for one offense, if that offense is not closely related to the offense articulated by the officer at the time of the arrest?
- For the purpose of qualified immunity, was the law clearly established when there was a split in the circuits regarding the application of the "closely related offense doctrine", the Ninth Circuit had no controlling authority applying the doctrine, and Washington state law did not apply the doctrine?
Resources:
Michael P. LynchFor Respondent Alford:
Assistant Attorney General
Olympia, WA
Randolph Stuart Phillips
Poulsbo, WA
Claude M. Ballard, et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
No. 03-184
Estate of Kanter, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
No. 03-1034
Subject:
Ballard, et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 03-184Decisions:
In this case, the trial was conducted by a Special Trial Judge employed at will by the Tax Court. The Special Trial Judge was required to create a report of factual and legal findings, but his original report has never been made available to the parties, the public, or the reviewing Article III courts. Instead, his superiors on the Tax Court either overruled his factual findings or persuaded him to change his mind, thus creating a factual finding of tax fraud. This entire process took place off the record, and came to light only in a subsequent conversation between two Tax Court judges and a counsel for another party.
The questions presented are:Estate of Kanter, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 03-1034
- Whether this secretive process is consistent with the Due Process Clause or the right to effective Article III review?
- Whether this secretive process is consistent with 26 U.S.C. 7482, which provides that Article III courts must review Tax Court decisions just as they would decisions of a U.S. district court?
The Tax Court keeps secret, even from the reviewing courts of appeals, the findings of fact and credibility judgments of its special trial judges. By law, these trial judges are required to file reports containing findings of fact and opinion with the Tax Court. Tax Ct. R. 183(b). By law, these findings of fact "shall be presumed to be correct" and the Tax Court is required to give "due regard" to the circumstance that the trial judge "had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses." Tax Ct. R. 183(c). Nonetheless, the Tax Court overturns the factual findings, including the credibility findings, of its trial judges without the record revealing those findings or that the Tax Court has overturned them. Secret trial judge reports preclude the courts of appeals from determining whether the Tax Court has complied with the legal constraints described above. Secret trial judge reports also preclude the courts of appeals from reviewing a Tax Court decision on the basis of the entire record on which that decision in fact rests. Federal statutes require that "all reports of the Tax Court * * * shall be public records." 26 U.S.C. 7461(a).
The questions presented are:
- Whether the due process clause or the governing federal statutes require that the courts of appeals be able to review Tax Court decisions on the basis of the complete record, including the trial judge's findings of fact that, by law, the Tax Court must presume to be correct.
- Whether Tax Court Rule 183 requires judges of the Tax Court to uphold findings of fact and credibility judgments made by their trial judges unless those findings are "clearly erroneous," as the D.C. Circuit has held, or are those findings and credibility judgments entitled to no deference at all, as the Seventh Circuit held in this case.
Resources:
Vester T. Hughes Jr.For Petitioners Estate of Kanter, et al.:
Hughes & Luce
Dallas, TX
Richard H. PildesFor Respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue:
Cambridge, MA
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Thomas Goughnour, Acting Warden v. William C.
Payton
No. 03-1039
Subject:
Decisions:- Did the Ninth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) when it found the California Supreme Court objectively unreasonable in holding that California's "catch-all" mitigation instruction in capital cases is constitutional as applied to post-crime evidence in mitigation?
Resources:
Andrea Natalia CortinaFor Respondent Payton:
Deputy Attorney General
San Diego, CA
Dean R. Gits
Deputy Federal Public Defender
Los Angeles, CA
Jennifer M. Granholm, Governor of
Michigan, et al. v. Eleanor Heald,
et al.
No. 03-1116
Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers
Ass'n v. Eleanor Heald, et
al.
No. 03-1120
Juanita Swedenburg, et al. v. Edward
D. Kelly, Chairman, New York Div. of
Alcoholic Beverage Control, State
Liquor Auth., et al.
No. 03-1274
Subject:
Granholm, et al. v. Heald, et al., No. 03-1116
Under state law, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission generally bans out-of-state direct shipment of alcoholic liquor to consumers' doorsteps, but permits in-state licensed wineries to direct ship to consumers, and out-of-state wineries to import through in-state licensed wholesalers. Out-of-state wineries may also petition the State Liquor Control Commission for an order permitting them to ship wine directly to consumers in the State. Any denial of such a request may be appealed through the State court system. Section 2 of the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly prohibits importation of alcoholic beverages into any state for delivery or use, in violation of the laws of the State. The Court of Appeals declared Michigan's alcoholic liquor importation law facially unconstitutional in violation of the Commerce Clause. The question presented is:Does Michigan's regulation of the importation of beverage alcohol under the 21st Amendment facially violate the Commerce Clause when it permits in-state licensed wineries to directly ship alcohol to consumers, but requires out-of-state wineries to import its products through licensed in-state wholesalers and to sell its products through licensed retailers or request permission of the Liquor Control Commission to bypass this distribution system and ship directly to consumers?Michigan Beer & Wine Wholesalers Ass'n v. Heald, et al., No. 03-1120
Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits importation of alcoholic beverages into any state, for delivery or use therein, in violation of the laws thereof. In the Webb-Kenyon Act, 27 U.S.C. 122, Congress exercised its power under the Commerce Clause to impose essentially the same prohibition by federal statute. Michigan, like many other states, generally prohibits the importation of alcoholic beverages by any unlicensed person. Michigan law permits licensed in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but does not, as a matter of right, permit out-of-state wineries (which are not licensed by the state) to do so. An out-of-state entity may locate in Michigan and be licensed as an in-state winery. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Michigan statute is "facially discriminatory" and struck down the prohibition on importation, allowing Michigan consumers to order and receive wine from out-of-state sources without limitation. The questions presented are:Swedenburg, et al. v. Kelly, et al., No. 03-1274
- Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in ruling (in conflict with a Seventh Circuit decision upholding a similar Indiana statute against the same challenge) that the Twenty-first Amendment and the Webb-Kenyon Act do not authorize Michigan to enact statutes that prohibit the importation of alcoholic beverages by unlicensed persons, and that the Commerce Clause bars such statutes.
- Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in ruling (in conflict with a Fourth Circuit decision with respect to a similar North Carolina statute) that the proper remedy for the alleged discrimination was to invalidate the state's control over importation of alcoholic beverages rather than merely strike the offending exception for in-state wineries.
Decisions:
- Does New York's discriminatory and protectionist prohibition against direct interstate shipment of wine to consumers violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and if so, is it "saved" by the 21st Amendment?
- Does New York's discriminatory and protectionist prohibition against direct interstate shipment of wine to consumers violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, (Heald v. Engler) Opinion Filed: August 28, 2003
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit
(Swedenburg v. Kelly) Opinion Filed: February 12, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 24, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1116 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1120 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1274 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:Counsel of Record
- Coming Soon
No. 03-1116
For Petitioners Granholm, et al.:
Thomas L. CaseyFor Respondents Heald, et al.:
Solicitor General
Michigan Attorney General's Office
Lansing, MI
James A. TanfordNo. 03-1120
Bloomington, IN
For Petitioner Michigan Beer & Wine
Wholesalers Ass'n:
Anthony S. KogutFor Respondents Heald, et al.:
Willingham & Cote, P. C.
East Lansing, MI
James A. Tanford
Bloomington, IN
No. 03-1274
For Petitioners Swedenburg, et al.:
Clint BolickFor Respondents Kelly, et al.:
Washington, DC
Miguel A. Estrada
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al.
No. 03-1164Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al.
No. 03-1165Subject:
Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act), First Amendment, Assessments for Advertising
Questions:Veneman, et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al., No. 03-1164
Whether the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act), 7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., and the implementing Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order), 7 C.F.R. Part 1260, violate the First Amendment insofar as they require cattle producers to pay assessments to fund generic advertising with which they disagree.
Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., et al. v. Livestock Marketing, et al., No. 03-1165
Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 ("Beef Act"), 7 U.S.C. 2901 et seq., and regulations promulgated thereunder—which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under the direct supervision and control of the Secretary of Agriculture—are "unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit
Opinion Filed: July 8, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: May 24, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1164 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1165 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
No. 03-1164
For Petitioners Veneman, et al.:
Theodore OlsonFor Respondents Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, et al.:
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Ronald A. Parsons, Jr.No. 03-1165
Johnson, Heidepriem, Miner,
Marlow & Janklow, LLP
Sioux Falls, SD
Philip C. Olsson
Olsson Frank and Weeda
Washington, DC
For Petitioner Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc., et al.
Lorane F. HebertFor Respondent Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, et al.:
Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P.
Washington, DC
Philip C. Olsson
Olsson Frank and Weeda
Washington, DC
Richard G. Rousey, et ux. v. Jill R. Jacoway
No. 03-1407Subject:
Individual Retirement Accounts, Bankruptcy Exemptions
Question:Should this Court grant certiorari to resolve the threeway circuit conflict over whether and to what extent Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are exempt from a bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(10)(E)?
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit
Opinion Filed: October 20, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 7, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
PartiesPetition Phase
Counsel of Record- Petitioners
For Petitioners Rousey, et ux.:
Thomas C. GoldsteinFor Respondent Jacoway:
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
Colli C. McKiever
Fayetteville, AR
Roderick Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education
No. 02-1672Subject:
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Retaliation
Question:Whether the private right of action for violations of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., encompasses redress for retaliation for complaints about unlawful sex discrimination.
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Opinion Filed: October 21, 2002
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 14, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Jackson:
Walter DellingerFor Respondent Birmingham Bd. of Ed.:
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
Washington, DC
Kenneth L. Thomas
Thomas, Means & Gillis, P.C.
Birmingham, AL
Darin L. Muehler, et al. v. Iris Mena
No. 03-1423Subject:
Search & Seizure, Police Questioning, Authority to Detain
Questions:Decisions:
- Whether, in light of this Court's repeated holdings that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure, the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that law enforcement officers who have lawfully detained an individual pursuant to a valid search warrant engage in an additional, unconstitutional "seizure" if they ask that person questions about criminal activity without probable cause to believe that the person is or has engaged in such activity.
- Whether, in light of this Court's ruling in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), that a valid search warrant carries with it the implicit authority to detain occupants while the search is conducted, the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that a two to three hour detention of the occupant of a suspected gang safe-house while officers searched for concealed weapons and other evidence of a gang-related drive-by shooting was unconstitutional because the occupant was initially detained at gun-point and handcuffed for the duration of the search.
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Opinion Filed: June 23, 2003
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Order Denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc, Filed Jan. 14, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 14, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioners Muehler, et al.:
Carter G. PhillipsFor Respondent Mena:
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Paul L. Hoffman
Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris Hoffman
Venice, CA
Melvin T. Smith v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts
No. 03-8661Subject:
Double Jeopardy, Successive Prosecutions, Insufficient Evidence
Questions:Decisions:
- Should this Court grant certiorari to directly review Smith's case and decide the question that, constrained by the habeas corpus standard of review, it did not reach in the recent case of Price v. Vincent? That is, whether the double jeopardy clause's prohibition against successive prosecutions is violated where the judge unequivocally rules that the defendant is not guilty because the government's evidence is insufficient but later reverses her finding of not guilty?
- There is a split of opinion among the United States Courts of Appeals and among the state courts on the question of whether, in similar situations, trial judges violate the double jeopardy protection against successive prosecution by withdrawing an already granted verdict of not guilty. Should this Court grant certiorari to clarify its jurisprudence?
- Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Opinion Filed: May 21, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 14, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Smith:
David J. NathansonFor Respondent Massachusetts:
Boston, MA
Cathryn A. Neaves
Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
Boston, MA
David Whitfield v. United States
No. 03-1293Haywood Eudon Hall, aka Don Hall v. United States
No. 03-1294Subject:
Overt Acts, Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering, Criminal Law
Question:Is commission of an overt act an element of the crime of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. 1956(h)?
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit
Opinion Filed: November 10, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 21, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1293 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet - No. 03-1294 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Whitfield:
David Whitfield, pro se Coleman, FLFor Petitioner Hall:
Thomas C. GoldsteinFor Respondent United States:
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Reginald Shepard v. United States
No. 03-9168Subject:
Armed Career Criminal Act, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Prior Convictions, Criminal Law
Question:Whether under the amended Armed Career Criminal Act ("the Act"), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence is required for anyone convicted as a felon in possession of a firearm who has three or more prior convictions for a "violent felony" or "serious drug offense?"
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 1st Circuit, Opinion Filed: November 3, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 21, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Shepard:
Linda J. ThompsonFor Respondent United States:
Thompson & Thompson, P.C.
Springfield, MA
Theodore Olson
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Dennis Bates, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
No. 03-388Subject:
[Coming Soon]
Question:[Coming Soon]
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit
Opinion Filed: June 11, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioners Dennis Bates, et al.:
Kimberly S. KellerFor Respondent Dow Agrosciences LLC:
The Keller Group
San Antonio, TX
Dean T. Barnhard
Barnes & Thornburg
Indianapolis, IN
City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, et al.
No. 03-855Subject:
[Coming Soon]
Question:[Coming Soon]
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit
Opinion Filed: July 21, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Sherrill, NY:
Ira S. SacksFor Respondents Oneida Indian Nation
Gursky & Partners, LLP
New York, NY
of New York, et al.:
Michael R. Smith
Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
Washington, DC
George J. Tenet, Individually and as Director of Central Intelligence and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, et al., v. John Doe, et ux.
No. 03-1395Subject:
[Coming Soon]
Question:[Coming Soon]
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Opinion Filed: May 29, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioners Tenet, et al.:
Theodore OlsonFor Respondents Doe, et ux.:
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Steven W. Hale
Perkins Coie
Seattle, WA
John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Angel McClary Raich, et al.
No. 03-1454Subject:
[Coming Soon]
Question:[Coming Soon]
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Opinion Filed: December 16, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioners Ashcroft, et al.:
Theodore OlsonFor Respondents Raich, et al.:
Solicitor General of the United States
Washington, DC
Robert A. Long
https://lawyers.findlaw.com/profile/view/2585228_1
Washington, DC
Charles Russell Rhines v. Douglas Weber, Warden
No. 03-9046Subject:
[Coming Soon]
Question:[Coming Soon]
Decisions:
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit
Opinion Filed: October 7, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 28, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
Counsel of Record
- [Coming Soon]
For Petitioner Rhines:
Roberto A. LangeFor Respondent Weber:
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, LLP
Sioux Falls, SD
Craig M. Eichstadt
South Dakata Attorney General's Office
Pierre, SD
Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled
To view PDF files
listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
![]()