US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

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

January 2006
[Download January 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.
Monday, January 9 Court of Appeals of Michigan Unpublished Opinion Filed: June 17, 2004 (From Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism)
  • United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: June 27, 2005
  • Resources:

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

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Hudson:

    David A. Moran
    Wayne State University Law School
    Detroit, MI
    For Respondent Michigan:
    Timothy A. Baughman
    Wayne County Prosecutor's Office
    Detroit, MI


    Tuesday, January 10

    Michael Hartman, Frank Kormann, Pierce McIntosh, Norman Robbins, and Robert Edwards v. William G. Moore, Jr.
    No. 04-1495

    Subject:

      Civil Rights Actions, Retaliatory Prosecution, First Amendment
    Question: Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioners Hartman, et al.:

    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Moore:
    Paul Michael Pohl
    Jones Day
    Pittsburgh, PA


    Texaco Inc. v. Fouad N. Dagher, et al.
    No. 04-805

    Shell Oil Company v. Fouad N. Dagher, et al.
    No. 04-814

    Subject:

      Antitrust, Sherman Act, Joint Ventures, Price Setting
    Questions:
      Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, et al., No. 04-805
      Whether it is per se illegal concerted action under Section I of the Sherman Act for an economically integrated joint venture to set the selling price of its own products.
      Shell Oil Company v. Dagher, et al., No. 04-814
      Whether it is per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for a lawful, economically integrated joint venture to set the prices at which the joint venture sells its products.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

    • Docket Sheet - No. 04-805 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Docket Sheet - No. 04-814 From the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism: On the Docket

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Texaco:

    Craig E. Stewart
    Jones Day
    San Francisco, CA
    For Petitioner Shell Oil:
    Ronald L. Olson
    Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
    Los Angeles, CA
    For Respondents Dagher, et al.:
    Daniel R. Shulman
    Gray Plant Mooty
    Minneapolis, MN


    Wednesday, January 11

    Jenifer Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, dba The Moonlight Cafe
    No. 04-944

    Subject:

      Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Employment Discrimination, Subject Matter Jurisdiction
    Question:
      Section 701(b) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies the Title VII prohibition against employment discrimination to employers with fifteen or more employees. Does this provision limit the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of a Title VII claim?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Arbaugh:

    Jeffrey A. Schwartz
    Watkins Ludlam Winter & Stennis, P.A.
    New Orleans, LA
    For Respondent Y & H Corp.:
    Brett John Prendergast
    New Orleans, LA



    Paul Gregory House v. Ricky Bell, Warden
    No. 04-8990

    Subject:

      Actual Innocence, Exhaustion of State Remedies, "Truly Persuasive Showing," Habeas Corpus, Criminal Law
    Questions:
    1. Did the majority below err in applying this Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo to hold that Petitioner's compelling new evidence, though presenting at the very least a colorable claim of actual innocence, was as a matter of law insufficient to excuse his failure to present that evidence before the state courts—merely because he had failed to negate each and every item of circumstantial evidence that had been offered against him at the original trial?

    2. What constitutes a "truly persuasive showing of actual innocence" pursuant to Herrera v. Collins sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner House:

    Stephen M. Kissinger
    Knoxville, TN
    For Respondent Bell:
    Jennifer L. Smith
    Associate Deputy Attorney General
    Nashville, TN



    Tuesday, January 17

    Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission
    No. 04-1581

    Subject:

      Elections, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Of 2002 (BCRA), Corporate Disbursements, Electioneering Communications
    Questions:
    1. Whether as-applied challenges are permitted to the prohibition on corporate disbursements for electioneering communications at 2 U.S.C. 441b after McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

    2. If so, whether the prohibition on electioneering communications is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, and particularly

      1. the three particular grass-roots lobbying broadcast communications sponsored by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. here and/or

      2. grass-roots lobbying communications generally, as carefully defined,


      with any communications to be funded either from a general corporate account or, alternatively, from a separate bank account to which only qualified individuals may donate, as defined in 2 U.S.C. 434(f)(2)(E).
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:
    • [Coming Soon]
    Counsel of Record

    For Appellant WRTL:

    James Bopp Jr.
    Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom
    Terre Haute, IN
    For Appellee FEC:
    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC



    Gary Kent Jones v. Linda K. Flowers, et al.
    No. 04-1477

    Subject:

      Tax Sale, Property Forfeiture, Notice Requirements, Due Process
    Question:
      When mailed notice of a tax sale or property forfeiture is returned undelivered, does due process require the government to make any additional effort to locate the owner before taking the property?
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:
    • [Coming Soon]
    Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Jones:

    Michael T. Kirkpatrick
    Public Citizen Litigation Group
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Flowers:
    A. J. Kelly
    Little Rock, AR



    Wednesday, January 18

    United States v. Jeffrey Grubbs
    No. 04-1414

    Subject:

      Fourth Amendment, Search, Anticipatory Warrant, Suprression of Evidence, Criminal Law
    Question:
      Whether the Fourth Amendment requires suppression of evidence when officers conduct a search under an anticipatory warrant after the warrant's triggering condition is satisfied, but the triggering condition is not set forth either in the warrant itself or in an affidavit that is both incorporated into the warrant and shown to the person whose property is being searched.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner United States:

    Paul D. Clement
    U.S. Solicitor General
    Washington, DC
    For Respondent Grubbs:
    Mark J. Reichel
    Assistant Federal Defender
    Sacramento, CA



    Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Shadi Dabit
    No. 04-1371

    Subject:

      Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), Preemption, State Law Class Actions, Securities Law
    Question:
      Whether, as the Seventh Circuit held earlier this month and in direct conflict with the decision below, SLUSA preempts state law class action claims based upon allegedly fraudulent statements or omissions brought solely on behalf of persons who were induced thereby to hold or retain (and not purchase or sell) securities.
    Decisions:

    Resources:

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

    Briefs:

        Parties Counsel of Record

    For Petitioner Merrill Lynch:

    Jay B. Kasner
    Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
    New York, NY
    For Respondent Dabit:
    William B. Federman
    Federman & Sherwood
    Oklahoma City, OK



     

    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