Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

April 2005
[Download April 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2003-2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Monday, April 18

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing
No. 04-603

Subject:

    Original Jurisdiction, Personal Service, Notice of Sizure of Property, Removal Jurisdiction
Question:
    28 U.S.C. 1441(b) allows removal of any state civil action in which the district courts have original jurisdiction wherein the claim is founded on a right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States. This Court has routinely held that such removal requires both a substantial federal question and the district court must have original jurisdiction over the action.

    The question raised is, when there is a violation by the IRS of 26 U.S.C. 6335(a) by intentionally ignoring the prerequisite provision requiring personal service of notice of seizure before obtaining service by certified mail, whether the defendant in a state quiet title action can remove the action by claiming that the necessary interpretation of 26 U.S.C. 6335(a) as to whether strict compliance or substantial compliance with the statute constitutes a substantial federal question and creates original jurisdiction in the district court.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Grable & Sons:

Charles E. McFarland
New Castle, KY
For Respondent Darue Engineering:
Michael C. Walton
Rhoades McKee
Grand Rapids, MI



Jay Shawn Johnson v. California
No. 04-6964

Subject:

    Juries, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Peremptory Challenges, Discrimination, Criminal Law
Question:
    Whether to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the objector must show that it is more likely than not the other party's peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Johnson:

Stephen B. Bedrick
Oakland, CA
For Respondent California:
Seth K. Schalit
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA



Tuesday, April 19

Margaret Bradshaw, Warden v. John David Stumpf
No. 04-637

Subject:

    Guilty Plea, Voluntariness, Due Process, Grounds to Vacate, Criminal Law
Questions:
  1. Is a representation on the record from defendant's counsel and/or the defendant that defense counsel has explained the elements of the charge to the defendant, sufficient to show the voluntariness of the guilty plea under Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 (1976)?

  2. Does the Due Process Clause require that a defendant's guilty plea be vacated when the State subsequently prosecutes another person in connection with the crime and allegedly presents evidence at the second defendant's trial that is inconsistent with the first defendant's guilt?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Bradshaw:

Diane Richards Brey
Deputy Solicitor
Columbus, OH
For Respondent Stumpf:
Alan M. Freedman
Midwest Center for Justice
Evanston, IL



Deneice A. Mayle, Warden v. Jacoby Lee Felix
No. 04-563

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Amended Petition, New Claim, Statute of Limitations, Criminal Law
Question:
    When a habeas petitioner challenging a state judgment amends his petition to include a new claim, does the amendment relate back to the date of the filing of his petition and thus avoid the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1), so long as the new claim stems from the prisoner's trial, conviction, or sentence?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Mayle:

Mathew K. M. Chan
Deputy Attorney General
Sacramento, CA
For Respondent Felix:
David M. Porter
Assistant Federal Defender
Sacramento, CA



Wednesday, April 20

Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., et al.
No. 03-1237

Subject:

    Patent Law, Drug-Research Safe Harbor, Animal Studies
Question:
    To encourage development and expedite introduction of pharmaceuticals, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate drug research from charges of infringement so long as the research is "reasonably related to the development and submission of information" to the Food and Drug Administration. Did the Federal Circuit err in concluding that this drug-research safe harbor does not protect animal studies of the sort that are essential to the development of new drugs, where the research will be presented to the FDA, and where barring the research until expiration of the patent could mean years of delay in the availability of life-saving new drugs?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Merck KGaA:

Donald Robert Dunner
Finnegan Henderson Farabow
    Garrett & Dunner
Washington, DC
For Respondents Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., et al.:
Mauricio A. Flores
McDermott, Will & Emery
Irvine, CA



Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States, ex rel. Karen T. Wilson
No. 04-169

Subject:

    Statute of Limitations, Retaliatory Discharge, False Claims Act
Question:
    Whether the six year limitation period set out in 31 U.S.C. 3731(b) should be applied to retaliatory discharge actions under the false claims act or whether courts should apply the most closely analogous state limitation period.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Graham Co. Soil & Water
Conservation District, et al.:

Christopher G. Browning Jr.
North Carolina Department of Justice
Raleigh, NC
For Respondent U.S., ex rel. Wilson:
Mark T. Hurt
Abington, VA



Monday, April 25

Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan
No. 03-10198

Subject:

    Right to Counsel, Sentencing, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, Criminal Law
Question:
  1. Does Michigan's law and practice of not appointing counsel to indigent defendants convicted by guilty plea, violate Petitioner's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process?

  2. Is Petitioner entitled to resentencing, where counsel failed to render effective assistance by not objecting to improper scoring under Michigan's sentencing guidelines which resulted in Petitioner receiving a considerably longer sentence?
Decisions:
  • Court of Appeals of Michigan, Unreported Opinion Filed: April 30, 2003
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 7, 2005

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Halbert:

David A. Moran
Wayne State University Law School
Detroit, MI
For Respondent Michigan:
Michael Cox
Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI



Aurelio O. Gonzalez v. James V. Crosby Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
No. 04-6432

Subject:

    Habeas Corpus, Rule 60(b) Motion, Successive Petition
Question:
    Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that every Rule 60(b) motion (other than for fraud under (b)(3)) constitutes a prohibited "second or successive" petition as a matter of law, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Gonzalez:

Paul M. Rashkind
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Miami, FL
For Respondent Crosby:
Cassandra K. Dolgin
Assistant Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL



Tuesday, April 26

American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.
No. 03-1230

Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.
No. 03-1234

Subject:

    Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, Vehicle Fee, Preemption
Questions:
  1. Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles conducting intrastate operations violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

  2. Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce is preempted by 49 U.S.C. 14504. Decisions:
    1. Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion Filed: March 11, 2003
    2. United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 14, 2005
    3. United States Supreme Court, Amended Order Granting Cert.: January 21, 2005

      Resources:


      Briefs:

          Parties Counsel of Record

      For Petitioners American
      Trucking Associations, Inc., et al.:

      Charles Rothfeld
      Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
      Washington, DC
      For Petitioners Mid-Con Freight
      Systems, Inc., et al.:
      James H. Hanson
      Scopelitits, Garvin,
         Light & Hanson, P.C.
      Indianapolis, IN
      For Respondents Michigan Public
      Service Commission, et al.:
      Thomas L. Casey
      Michigan Solicitor General
      Lansing, MI



      Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gregory Thompson
      No. 04-514

      Subject:

        Habeas Corpus, Death Penalty, Withdrawal of Opinion, Notice, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D)
      Question:
        Did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withdrawing its opinion affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(D) made issuance of the mandate mandatory, without notice to the parties or any finding that the court's action was necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice, particularly where state judicial proceedings to enforce the inmate's death sentence had progressed in reliance upon the finality of the judgment in the federal habeas proceedings?
      Decisions:

      Resources:


      Briefs:

          Parties Counsel of Record

      For Petitioner Bell:

      Jennifer L. Smith
      Associate Deputy Attorney General
      Nashville, TN
      For Respondent Thompson:
      Dana Hansen Chavis
      Federal Defender Services
      Knoxville, TN



      Wednesday, April 27

      Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
      No. 04-368

      Subject:

        Witness Tampering, Jury Instructions
      Question:
        Whether Arthur Andersen LLP's conviction for witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. 1512(b) must be reversed because the jury instructions upheld by the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted the elements of the offense, in conflict with decisions of this Court and the Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, and D.C. Circuits.
      Decisions:

      Resources:


      Briefs:

          Parties Counsel of Record

      For Petitioner Arthur Andersen LLP:

      Maureen E. Mahoney
      Latham & Watkins LLP
      Washington, DC
      For Respondent United States:
      Paul D. Clement
      Acting U.S. Solicitor General
      Washington, DC




       

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

       

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

Was this helpful?

Copied to clipboard