US Supreme Court Docket

Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Subject:

Sentence Enhancement, Harmless Error, Criminal Law, Sentencing

Whether error as to the definition of a sentencing enhancement should be subject to harmless error analysis where it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict on the enhancement.

• Supreme Court of Washington, Opinion Filed: April 14, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: October 17, 2005

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
• Petitioner - Reply
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Washington:


James M. Whisman
King County Prosecuting Attorney
Seattle, WA

For Respondent Recuenco:


Gregory C. Link
Seattle, WA





Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Sheila White
No. 05-259

Subject:

Title VII, Retaliatory Discrimination, Materially Adverse Change, Protected Activity, Labor & Employment, Civil Rights
Question:
Whether an employer may be held liable for retaliatory discrimination under Title VII for any "materially adverse change in the terms of employment" (including a temporary suspension rescinded by the employer with full back pay or an inconvenient reassignment, as the court below held); for any adverse treatment that was "reasonably likely to deter" the plaintiff from engaging in protected activity (as the Ninth Circuit holds); or only for an "ultimate employment decision" (as two other courts of appeals hold).
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 6th Circuit, Opinion Filed: April 14, 2004
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 5, 2005

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
  
  
• Respondent [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.:


Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC

For Respondent White:


Emily Elizabeth Garrard
Donati Law Firm LLP
Memphis, TN



Tuesday, April 18

United States v. Cuauhtemoc Gonzales-Lopez
No. 05-352

Subject:

Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment, Criminal Law, Counsel of Choice
Question:
Whether a district court's denial of a criminal defendant's qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice requires automatic reversal of his conviction.
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 8th Circuit, Opinion Filed: March 8, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner United States:


Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

For Respondent Gonzalez-Lopez:


Jeffrey L. Fisher
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA



Jacob Zedner v. United States
No. 05-5992

Subject:

Speedy Trial Act, Right to Counsel, Sixth Amendment, Indictments, Criminal Law
Questions:
1. Whether, in light of the statute's text and Congress's goal of protecting the public interest in prompt criminal trials, the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act may be waived only in the limited circumstances mentioned in the statute, the issue left open in New York v. Hill, 528 U.S. 110, 117 n.2 (2000).
   
   
2. Whether a violation of the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day time limit for bringing a defendant to trial is subject to harmless error analysis, despite the statute's mandatory language stating that, in the event of a violation, the "indictment shall be dismissed."
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Opinion Filed: March 8, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Zedner:


Edward Scott Zas
New York, NY

For Respondent United States:


Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC



Wednesday, April 19 Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Pearl Murphy, et vir
No. 05-18

Subject:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Expert Fees, Attorney's Fees
Question:
Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA")'s [sic] attorneys' fees shifting provision, 20 U.S.C. 1415(i)(3)(B), authorize a court to award "expert" fees to the parents of a child with a disability who is a prevailing party under the IDEA?
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Opinion Filed: April 15, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Arlington Central School
District Board of Education:


Raymond G. Kuntz
Kuntz, Spagnuolo, Scapoli & Schiro, P. C.
Bedford, NY

For Respondent Murphy :


David C. Vladeck
Institute for Public Representation
Washington, DC



Eric Michael Clark v. Arizona
No. 05-5966

Subject:

Insanity, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Criminal Law, Evidence
Questions:
1. Whether Arizona's insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case, violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
   
   
2. Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
Decisions:
• Arizona Court of Appeals Unpublished Opinion, filed: January 25, 2005 (from Volokh.com)
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 5, 2005

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Clark:


David Goldberg
Flagstaff, AZ

For Respondent Arizona :


Michael T. O'Toole
Assistant Attorney General
Phoenix, AZ



Monday, April 24 Brigham City, Utah v. Charles W. Stuart
No. 05-502

Subject:

Warrantless Searches, Emergency Aid Exception, Fourth Amendment, Criminal Law
Questions:
1. Does the "emergency aid exception" to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), turn on an officer's subjective motivation for entering the home?
   
   
2. Was the gravity of the "emergency" or "exigency" sufficient to justify, under the Fourth Amendment, the officers' entry into the home to stop the fight?
Decisions:
• Utah Supreme Court Opinion, filed: February 18, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006
• United States Supreme Court, Decided: May 22, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
  
  
• Respondent [Coming Soon]
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Brigham City:


Mark L. Shurtleff
Attorney General of Utah
Salt Lake City, UT

For Respondent Stuart:


Michael Patrick Studebaker
Michael P. Studebaker LLC
Ogden, UT



Carl Kircher, et al. v. Putnam Funds Trust, et al.
No. 05-409

Subject:

Class Actions, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
Question:
Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction, contrary to the holdings of three other circuits, to review a district court order remanding for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction a suit removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1447(d)'s bar on appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the district courts' conclusion that petitioners' claims are not preempted by and thus not removable under SLUSA.
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 7th Circuit, Opinion Filed: April 5, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet -From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Petitioner's Appendix
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Kircher:


David C. Frederick
Washington, DC

For Respondent Putnam Funds Trust:


Mark A. Perry
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC



Tuesday, April 25 Keshia Cherie Ashford Dixon v. United States
No. 05-7053

Subject:

Duress, Burden of Persuasion, Criminal Law
Question:
Where a criminal defendant raises a duress defense, whether the burden of persuasion should be on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was not under duress, or upon the defendant to prove duress by a preponderance of the evidence.
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 5th Circuit, filed: June 20, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 13, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase


• Petitioner [Coming Soon]
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Dixon:


J. Craig Jett
Hunt & Doss
Lake City, FL

For Respondent U.S.:


Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC



Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc., dba Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield v. Denise F. McVeigh
No. 05-200

Subject:

Federal Question Jurisdiction, Government Contractors, Federal Employees Health Benefits Act
Question:
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists over a suit by a federal government contractor to enforce, on behalf of the United States, a provision in a health benefits plan for federal employees that is part of a government contract established pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act.
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Opinion Filed: January 14, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 6, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Empire Healthchoice Assurance:


Anthony F. Shelley
Miller & Chevalier, Chartered
Washington, DC

For Respondent McVeigh:


Harry Raptakis
Mineola, NY



Wednesday, April 26 Clarence E. Hill v. James R. McDonough, Interim Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.
No. 05-8794

Subject:

Death Penalty, Lethal Injection, Eighth Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Civil Rights, Habeas Corpus
Questions:
1. Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the chemicals utilized for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254?
   
   
2. Whether, under the Supreme Court's decision in Nelson, a challenge to a particular protocol the State plans to use during the execution process constitutes a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983?
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Opinion Filed: January 24, 2006
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 25, 2006

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Hill:


D. Todd Doss
Hunt & Doss
Lake City, FL

For Respondent McDonough:


Carolyn M. Snurkowski
Assistant Deputy
Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL



Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Shirley Williams
No. 05-465

Subject:

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Enterprise, Corporations, Illegal Workers, Labor & Employment Law, Workers' Compensation Law
Questions:
Whether a defendant corporation and its agents can constitute an "enterprise" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 ("RICO"), in light of the settled rule that a RICO defendant must "conduct" or "participate in" the affairs of some larger enterprise and not just its own affairs.
Decisions:
• U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Opinion Filed: June 9, 2005
• United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 12, 2005

Resources:

• Docket Sheet - From the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

Briefs:

    Parties
Merits Phase
• Petitioner
• Respondent (1.9 MB)
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Mohawk Indus., Inc.:


Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC

For Respondent Williams:


Howard W. Foster
Johnson & Bell Ltd.
Chicago, IL




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


 

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