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Michigan Unpublished Opinion Filed: June 17, 2004 (From Northwestern University - Medill School of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:
- 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?
- 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:
- 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).
- If so, whether the prohibition on electioneering communications is
unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case, and
particularly
- the three particular grass-roots lobbying broadcast
communications sponsored
by Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. here and/or
- 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:
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:
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