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

March 2005
[Download March 1-2, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download March 21-30, 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, March 1

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:

    Supplemental Jurisdiction, Class Actions, Absent Class Members, Amount-in-Controversy
Questions:

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., et al. - No. 04-70

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?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Exxon Mobil Corp.:

Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondents Allapattah Servs, Inc., et al.:
Eugene E. Stearns
Sterns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
Miami, FL
For Petitioners Ortega, et al.:
Donald Belton Ayer
Jones Day
Washington, DC
For Respondent Star-Kist Foods, Inc.:
Robert A. Long, Jr.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC


Carman L. Deck v. Missouri
No. 04-5293

Subject:

    Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
Question:
    Are the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments violated by forcing a capital defendant to proceed through penalty phase while shackled and handcuffed to a belly chain in full view of the jury, and if so, doesn't the burden fall on the state to show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than on the defendant to show that he was prejudiced?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Deck:

Rosemary E. Percival
Kansas City, MO
For Respondent Missouri:
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:

    First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display
Question:
    Whether a large monument, 6 feet high and 3 feet wide, presenting the Ten Commandments, located on government property between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Van Orden:

Erwin Chemerinsky
Duke University School of Law
Durham, NC
For Respondents Perry, et al.:
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:

    First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display
Questions:
  1. Whether the Establishment Clause is violated by a privately donated display on government property that includes eleven equal size frames containing an explanation of the display along with nine historical documents and symbols that played a role in the development of American law and government where only one of the framed documents is the Ten Commandments and the remaining documents and symbols are secular.

  2. Whether a prior display by the government in a courthouse containing the Ten Commandments that was enjoined by a court permanently taints and thereby precludes any future display by the same government when the subsequent display articulates a secular purpose and where the Ten Commandments is a minority among numerous other secular historical documents and symbols.

  3. Whether the Lemon test should be overruled since the test is unworkable and has fostered excessive confusion in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

  4. Whether a new test for Establishment Clause purposes should be set forth by this Court when the government displays or recognizes historical expressions of religion.
Decisions:

Resources:


Briefs:

    Parties

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Copied to clipboard