Skip to main content
For Legal Professionals
Find a Lawyer
...

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

February 2005
[Download February 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.
Tuesday, February 22

Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
No. 04-108

Subject:

    Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Public Use, Eminent Domain
Question:
    What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight, but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax revenues and improve the local economy?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties     Amicus - Supporting Petitioners     Amicus - Supporting Respondents Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Kelo, et al.:

Scott G. Bullock
Institute For Justice Washington, DC
For Respondents New London, et al.:
Wesley W. Horton
Horton Shields & Knox PC
Hartford, CT


Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
No. 04-163

Subject:

    Just Compensation Clause, State Economic Legislation
Questions:
  1. Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court to invalidate state economic legislation on its face and enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that the legislation does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes the economic value or usefulness of any property.

  2. Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation Clause whether state economic legislation substantially advances a legitimate state interest, should apply a deferential standard of review equivalent to that traditionally applied to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment for that of the legislature by determining de novo, by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, whether the legislation will be effective in achieving its goals.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties     Amicus - Supporting Petitioners     Amicus - Supporting Respondent Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Lingle, et al.:

Seth P. Waxman
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Chevron U.S.A. Inc.:
Craig E. Stewart
Jones Day
San Francisco, CA


Wednesday, February 23

Francis A. Orff, et al. v. United States, et al.
No. 03-1566

Subject:

    Third-party Beneficiaries, Water Service and Repayment Contracts, Entitlement to Sue Agency
Question:
    The question presented is whether farmers are "intended" third-party beneficiaries of their irrigation district's water service and repayment contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and, therefore, entitled to sue the Bureau for breach thereof, as the Federal Circuit has long held, or merely "incidental" third-party beneficiaries and, therefore, not so entitled, as the Ninth Circuit holds in the decision below.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Orff, et al:

William M. Smiland
Smiland & Khachigian
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondents United States, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondent Westlands Water District:
Stuart L. Somach
Somach, Simmons & Dunn
Sacramento, CA


Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation
No. 03-1696

Subject:

    Dual Ffederal and State Jurisdiction, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Preclusion Principles
Question:
    May the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from conducting de facto appellate review of decisions by state courts, be expansively interpreted to additionally incorporate preclusion principles and divest federal courts of jurisdiction solely because a pending state-court proceeding presents identical issues, notwithstanding the long-established system of dual federal and state jurisdiction?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:
  • [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Exxon Mobil Corp., et al.:

Gregory Scott Coleman
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Austin, TX
For Respondent Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.:
Gregory Andrew Castanias
Jones Day
Washington, DC


Monday, February 28

Douglas Spector, et al. v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
No. 03-1388

Subject:

    Americans with Disabilities Act, Foreign-Flag Cruise Ships
Question:
    Whether and to what extent Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to companies that operate foreign-flag cruise ships in United States waters?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Spector, et al.:

Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondent Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd:
Thomas H. Wilson
Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
Houston, TX


John A. Pace v. David DiGuglielmo, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.
No. 03-9627

Subject:

Questions:
  1. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding an important question that this Court explicitly reserved in Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4 (2000) - whether an untimely state postconviction petition may be "properly filed" under 2244(d)(2)?

  2. Should this Court grant the writ to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeal regarding whether Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002) answered the question about "properly filed" that Artuz reserved?

  3. Should this Court grant the writ to answer the question about "properly filed" which was reserved by Artuz and which the Third Circuit decided erroneously?

  4. Should this Court grant the writ and review the Third Circuit's denial of equitable tolling, where the Third Circuit denies all federal habeas review to petitioners who act appropriately, reasonably and diligently, and as demanded by the exhaustion requirement, in seeking state court remedies?
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Pace:

Billy H. Nolas
Defender Association of Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA
For Respondents DiGuglielmo, et al.:
Ronald Eisenberg
Deputy District Attorney
Philadelphia, PA


 

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

 

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

Copied to clipboard