Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Allapattah Services, Inc., et al.
No. 04-70
Maria Del Rosario Ortega, et al. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc.
No. 04-79
Subject:
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., et al. - No. 04-70Decisions:
Whether the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367, authorizes federal courts with diversity jurisdiction over the individual claims of named plaintiffs to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members that do not satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement?
Del Rosario Ortega, et al. v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. - No. 04-79
Whether, in a civil diversity action in which the claims of one plaintiff meet the amount-in-controversy threshold, 28 U.S.C. 1367 authorizes the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the related claims of additional plaintiffs who do not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement?
Resources:
Carter G. PhillipsFor Respondents Allapattah Servs, Inc., et al.:
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Eugene E. StearnsFor Petitioners Ortega, et al.:
Sterns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
Miami, FL
Donald Belton AyerFor Respondent Star-Kist Foods, Inc.:
Jones Day
Washington, DC
Robert A. Long, Jr.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
Carman L. Deck v. Missouri
No. 04-5293
Subject:
Resources:
Rosemary E. PercivalFor Respondent Missouri:
Kansas City, MO
Evan J. Buchheim
Jefferson City, MO
Wednesday, March 2
Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al.
No. 03-1500
Subject:
Resources:
Erwin ChemerinskyFor Respondents Perry, et al.:
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
Amy Warr
Assistant Solicitor General
Austin, TX
McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al.
No. 03-1693
Subject:
Resources:
Mathew D. StaverFor Respondents ACLU of KY, et al.:
Liberty Counsel
Longwood, FL
David A. Freidman
Louisville, KY
Monday, March 21
Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, et al.
No. 04-278
Subject:
Resources:
Eric Michael ZiporinFor Respondents Gonzales, et al.:
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C.
Denver, CO
Brian J. Reichel
Broomfield, CO
Jon B. Cutter, et al. v. Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al.
No. 03-9877
Subject:
Resources:
David GoldbergerFor Respondents Wilkinson, et al.:
Ohio State University College of Law
Columbus, OH
Douglas R. ColeFor Respondent United States:
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Tuesday, March 22
Ulysses Tory, et al. v. Johnnie L. Cochran
No. 03-1488
Subject:
Resources:
Erwin ChemerinskyFor Respondent Cochran:
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
Jonathan B. Cole
Nemecek & Cole
Sherman Oaks, CA
Michael Donald Dodd v. United States
No. 04-5286
Subject:
Resources:
Janice L. BergmannFor Respondent United States:
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Paul D. Clement
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Monday, March 28
San Remo Hotel, L.P., et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
No. 04-340
Subject:
Resources:
Paul F. UtrechtFor Respondents San Francisco, et al.:
Andrew M. Zacks
San Francisco, CA
Andrew W. Schwartz
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP
San Francisco, CA
Jose Ernesto Medellin v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
No. 04-5928
Subject:
- The United States and Mexico are party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and its Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Acting on the consent set forth in the Optional Protocol, Mexico initiated proceedings in the International Court of Justice seeking relief for the violation of Petitioners Vienna Convention rights. On March 31, 2004, the Court rendered a judgment that adjudicated Petitioners rights. Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.)
, 2004 I.C.J. 128 (Mar. 31). The Avena Judgment built on the Courts rulings in LaGrand (F.R.G. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27), an earlier case also brought under the Optional Protocol.
- On Petitioner's application for a certificate of appealability of the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that precedents of this Court and its own barred it from complying with the LaGrand and Avena Judgments.
Decisions:
- In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines?
- In a case brought by a foreign national of a State party to the Vienna Convention, should a court in the United States give effect to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit
Opinion Filed: May 20, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 10, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
PartiesPetition Phase
- Petitioner
![]()
- Respondent - Opposition
(2.8 MB)
- Petitioner - Reply
![]()
![]()
Merits Phase
Amicus - Supporting Petitioner- Petitioner
![]()
- Respondent
![]()
- Petitioner - Reply
![]()
Merits Phase
Amicus - Supporting Respondent- American Bar Association
![]()
- Bar Associations and Human Rights Organizations
![]()
- Former United States Diplomats
![]()
- European Union and Members of the International Communtiy
![]()
- Foreign Sovereigns, et al.
![]()
- International Law Experts, et al.
![]()
- Ambassador Bruce Laingen, et al.
![]()
- Government of the United Mexican States
![]()
- NAFSA: Association of International Educators, et al.
(1.2 MB)
Merits Phase
Counsel of Record- States of Alabama, et al.
![]()
- Alliance Defense Fund
(4.2 MB)
- U.S. Senator John Cornyn
![]()
- Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
![]()
- Liberty Legal Institute
(1.7 MB)
- Mountain States Legal Foundation
![]()
- National District Attorneys Association
(2 MB)
- Professors of International Law, et al.
(3 MB)
- United States
[TEXT]
- Washington Legal Foundation, et al.
![]()
For Petitioner Medellin:
Donald Francis DonovanFor Respondent Dretke:
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
New York, NY
Gena Bunn
Assistant Attorney General
Austin, TX
Tuesday, March 29
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.
No. 04-480Subject:
Copyright Law, Internet-Based "File Sharing"
Question:Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to long-established principles of secondary liability in copyright law (and in acknowledged conflict with the Seventh Circuit), that the Internet-based "file sharing" services Grokster and StreamCast should be immunized from copyright liability for the millions of daily acts of copyright infringement that occur on their services and that constitute at least 90% of the total use of the services.
Decisions:
- U.S. District Court
Order Filed: April 25, 2003
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Opinion Filed: August 19, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 10, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 27, 2005
Resources:
Briefs:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
PartiesMerits Phase
Amicus - Supporting Petitioners- Motion Picture Studio and Recording Company Petitioners
![]()
- Songwriter and Music Publisher Petitioners
![]()
- Respondents Grokster, Ltd., and Streamcast Newtworks, Inc.
![]()
- Motion Picture Studio and Recording Company Petitioners - Reply
![]()
- Songwriter and Music Publisher Petitioners - Reply
![]()
Merits Phase
Amicus - Supporting Respondents- American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, et al.
![]()
- American Society of Composers, et al.
![]()
- Americans for Tax Reform
![]()
- Business Software Alliance
![]()
- Commissioner of Baseball, NBA, NFL, Professional Photographers of America, et al.
![]()
- Defenders of Property Rights
![]()
- International Rights Owners
![]()
- Kids First Coalition, Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for America, et al.
![]()
- Law and Economics Professors
![]()
- Law Professors, Economics Professors and Treatise Authors
![]()
- Macrovision Corporation
![]()
- Professors Peter Menell, David Nimmer, Robert Merges and Justin Hughes
![]()
- Napster, Movielink, CinemaNow, MusicNet et al.
![]()
- National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, et al.
![]()
- National Association of Broadcasters
![]()
- National Association of Recording Merchandisers
![]()
- Progress and Freedom Foundation
![]()
- State Attorneys General
![]()
- United States
[TEXT]
Merits Phase
Amicus - Supporting Neither Party- Altnet, Inc.
![]()
- American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
![]()
- American Conservative Union and National Taxpayers Union
![]()
- Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, et al.
![]()
- Computer Science Professors Harold Abelson, et al.
![]()
- Computing Industry Association
![]()
- Consumer Electronics Association, et al.
![]()
- Consumer Federation of America, et al.
![]()
- Creative Commons
![]()
- Distributed Computing Industry Association
![]()
- Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
![]()
- Emerging Technology Companies
![]()
- Free Software Foundation and New Yorkers for Fair Use
![]()
- Innovation Scholars and Economists
![]()
- Intel Corporation
![]()
- Sixty Intellectual Property and Technology Law Professors, et al.
![]()
- Internet Law Faculty
![]()
- Law Professors J. Glynn Lunney, et al.
![]()
- Law Professors Edward Lee, Peter Shane and Peter Swire
![]()
- Media Studies Professors
![]()
- National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys
![]()
- National Venture Capital Association
![]()
- Charles Nesson
![]()
- Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf
![]()
- Malla Pollack and Other Law Professors
![]()
- Sharman Networks Limited
![]()
- Sovereign Artists on Behalf of Ann Wilson and Nancy Wilson, et al.
![]()
Merits Phase
Counsel of Record- American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in Support of Vacatur and Remand
![]()
- Audible Magic, Digimarc and Gracenote
![]()
- Bridgemar Services, Ltd, d/b/a Imesh.com
![]()
- Digital Media Association, Netcoalition, The Center for Democracy and Information Technology Association of America
![]()
- Professor Lee A. Hollaar
![]()
- IEEE-USA
![]()
- Intellectual Property Owners Association
![]()
- U.S. Senators Leahy and Hatch
![]()
- Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) Suggesting Reversal
![]()
For Motion Picture Studio and
Recording Company Petitioners:
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.For Songwriter and Music
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
Publisher Petitioners:
Carey R. RamosFor Respondents StreamCast
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP
New York, NY
Networks, Inc., et al.:
Cindy Ann Cohn
Electronic Frontier Foundation
San Francisco, CA
National Cable & Telecommunications Ass'n, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al.
No. 04-277Federal Communications Commission and United States v. Brand X Internet Services, et al.
No. 04-281Subject:
Communications Act of 1934, Cable Operators, Cable Internet Service, Information Service, Telecommunications Service
Question:National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n, et al. v. Brand X Internet Servs., et al., No. 04-277
Decisions:Whether, under the framework set out in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the FCC was entitled to decide that, for purposes of regulation under the Communications Act, cable operators offering so-called "cable modem service" (high-speed Internet access over cable television systems) provide only an "information service" and not a "telecommunications service."FCC, et al. v. Brand X Internet Services, et al., No. 04-281Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Federal Communications Commission had impermissibly concluded that cable modem service is an "information service," without a separately regulated telecommunications service component, under the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.National Cable & Telecomm. Ass'n
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 9th Circuit
Opinion Filed: October 6, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 3, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Decided: June 27, 2005
Resources:
- Docket Sheet - No. 04-277 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Docket Sheet - No. 04-281 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
PartiesMerits Phase
Counsel of Record- Cable-Industry Petitioners
![]()
- Federal Petitioners
[TEXT]
- Respondents BellSouth and SBC - Supporting Petitioners
![]()
- Respondents Verizon, et al. - Supporting Reversal
![]()
- Respondents Brand X Internet Services, et al.
![]()
- Respondents Brand X Internet Services, et al. - Appendix
![]()
- Respondent MCI
![]()
- Respondents States and Consumer Groups
![]()
- Cable-Industry Petitioners - Reply
![]()
- Federal Petitioners - Reply
[TEXT]
- Respondents Verizon, et al. - Reply
![]()
For Petitioners National Cable &
Telecommunications Association, et al.:Howard J. SymonsFor Petitioners FCC, et al.:
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky and Popeo P.C.
Washington, DC
Paul D. ClementFor Respondents Brand X Internet Servs., et al.:
Acting U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Harvey L. ReiterFor Respondent MCI:
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP
Washington, DC
Mark D. SchneiderFor Respondents States, et al.:
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
Ellen S. LeVineFor Respondents BellSouth and SBC:
California Public Utilities Commission
San Francisco, CA
Michael K. KelloggFor Respondents Verizon, et al.:
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC
Andrew G. McBride
Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP
Washington, DC
Wednesday, March 30
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, et al. v. Charles E. Austin, et al.
No. 04-495Subject:
Prisoner Rights, Super-Maximum Security Prison, Due Process
Question:Where state prison officials decide to place a prisoner in a "super-maximum security" facility based on a predictive assessment of the security risk the prisoner presents, but prison regulations create a liberty interest for the prisoner in avoiding such placement, do procedures meeting the requirements specified in Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), satisfy the prisoner's due process rights?
Decisions:
- U.S. District Court - Northern District of Ohio
Opinion Filed: February 25, 2002
- U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Opinion Filed: June 10, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 10, 2004
Resources:
- Docket Sheet From the U.S. Supreme Court.
- Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket
Briefs:
PartiesMerits Phase
Counsel of Record- Petitioners
![]()
- Respondents
![]()
- Petitioners - Reply
![]()
For Petitioners Wilkinson, et al.:
Douglas R. ColeFor Respondents Austin, et al.:
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
Jules Lobel
Center for Constitutional Rights
Pittsburgh, PA
Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader
![]()