William W. Wilkins, Tax Commissioner for the State of Ohio, et al. v. Charlotte Cuno, et al.
No. 04-1724
Subject:
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, et al., No. 04-1704Decisions:Wilkins, et al. v. Cuno, et al., No. 04-1724
- Whether Ohio's investment tax credit, Ohio Revised Code 5733.33, which seeks to encourage economic development by providing a credit to taxpayers who install new manufacturing machinery and equipment in the State, violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
- Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohios investment tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5733.33
- Does the dormant Commerce Clause allow a State to attempt to attract new business investment in the State by offering credits against the State's general corporate franchise or income tax, where the amount of the credit is based on the amount of a business's new investment in the State?
- Whether respondents have standing to challenge Ohios investment tax credit, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 5733.33
Resources:
Theodore B. OlsonFor Petitioners Wilkins, et al.:
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
Douglas R. ColeFor Respondents Cuno, et al.:
State Solicitor General
Columbus, OH
Terry J. Lodge
Toledo, OH
Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County, Georgia
No. 04-1618
Subject:
Resources:
Miguel A. EstradaFor Respondent Chatam Co., GA:
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Washington, DC
Emily Elizabeth Garrard
Chatham Co. Attorney's Office
Savannah, GA
League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et
al.
No. 05-204
Travis County, Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-254
Eddie Jackson, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-276
GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
No. 05-439
Subject:
League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-204Decisions:Travis Co., TX, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-254
- Whether the 2003 Texas Congressional Redistricting Plan (Plan 1374C), adopted and developed using outdated, inaccurate 2000 Census data and resulting in malapportioned districts, in violation of one person, one vote when measured against 2003 Census data, and when "the single-minded purpose of the Texas Legislature in enacting Plan 1374C was to gain partisan advantage" and when such purpose is realized, is an unconstitutional political gerrymander.
- Whether proof of racially polarized voting is overcome by evidence of partisan affiliation of minority voters in the analysis of the second prong of Gingles in a minority vote dilution claim.
Does the Texas legislature's 2003 replacement of a legally valid congressional districting plan with a statewide plan, enacted for "the singleminded purpose" of gaining partisan advantage, satisfy the stringent constitutional rule of equipopulous districts by relying on the 2000 decennial census and the fiction of inter-censal population accuracy?
Jackson, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-276GI Forum of Texas, et al. v. Perry, et al., No. 05-439
- Whether the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment prohibit States from redrawing lawful districting plans in the middle of the decade, for the sole purpose of maximizing partisan advantage.
- Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act permits a State to destroy a district effectively controlled by African-American voters, merely because it is impossible to draw a district in which African-Americans constitute an absolute mathematical majority of the population.
- Whether, under Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996), a bizarre-looking congressional district, which was intentionally drawn as a majority-Latino district by connecting two far-flung pockets of dense urban population with a 300-mile-long rural "land bridge," may escape invalidation as a racial gerrymander because drawing a compact majority-Latino district would have required the mapmakers to compromise their political goal of maximizing Republican seats elsewhere in the State.
- Whether political partisanship is sufficient justification, under section 2 and the Constitution, for dismantling a Latino-majority congressional district in order to elect the Anglo-preferred candidate.
- Whether section 2 permits a state to eliminate a majority-minority district located in one area of the state and create another majority-minority district in a different area of the state.
- Whether the District Court erred by requiring section 2 demonstrative districts to be more compact and to offer greater electoral opportunity to minority voters than the corresponding districts in the challenged redistricting plan.
- Whether the number of majority-minority districts that can be created in the state functions as the upper limit of permissible political opportunity when assessing proportionality under Johnson v. DeGrandy.
Resources:
Rolando L. RiosFor Appellants Travis Co., et al.:
San Antonio, TX
Renea HicksFor Appellants Jackson, et al.:
Austin, TX
Paul M. SmithFor Appellants GI Forum, et al.:
Jenner & Block, LLP
Washington, DC
Nina PeralesFor Appellees Perry, et al.:
MALDEF
San Antonio, TX
R. Ted Cruz
State Solicitor General
Austin, TX
Monday, March 20
Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington
No. 05-5224
Subject:
Resources:
Jeffrey L. FisherFor Respondent Washington:
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA
James M. Whisman
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Seattle, WA
Hershel Hammon v. Indiana
No. 05-5705
Subject:
Resources:
Richard D. FriedmanFor Respondent Indiana:
Ann Arbor, MI
Thomas M. Fisher
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN
Tuesday, March 21
Howard Delivery Service, Inc., et al. v. Zurich American Insurance Co.
No. 05-128
Subject:
Resources:
Richard M. FrancisFor Respondent Zurich Am. Ins. Co.:
Bowles Rice McDavid
Graff & Love LLP
Charleston, WV
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, dba LabCorp v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.,
et al.
No. 04-607
Subject:
Resources:
Jonathan Saul FranklinFor Respondent Metabolite Labs:
Hogan & Hartson LLP
Washington, DC
Glenn K. Beaton
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Denver, CO
Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos
No. 04-473
Subject:
Resources:
Cindy S. LeeFor Respondent Ceballos:
Franscell Strickland Roberts & Lawrence
Glendale, CA
Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC
Wednesday, March 22
Humberto Fernandez-Vargas v. Alberto R. Gonzales
No. 04-1376
Subject:
Resources:
David M. GossettFor Respondent Gonzales:
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
Washington, DC
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Jeanne S. Woodford, et al. v. Viet Mike Ngo
No. 05-416
Subject:
Resources:
Jennifer G. PerkellFor Respondent Ngo:
Deputy Attorney General
San Francisco, CA
Meir Feder
Jones Day
New York, NY
Monday, March 27
U.S. Court of Appeals - 2nd Circuit, Unpublished Opinion Filed: July 2, 2004 (From Northwestern University - Medill School of Journalism)
Resources:
Richard L. HuffmanFor Respondent Ideal Steel Supply Corp:
Fox Horan & Camerini LLP
New York, NY
Kevin P. Roddy
Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
Woodbridge, NJ
Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald
Banks
No. 04-1739
Subject:
Resources:
Louis J. RovelliFor Respondent Banks:
Exec. Deputy Attorney General
Harrisburg, PA
Jere Krakoff
Stember Feinstein
Pittsburgh, PA
Tuesday, March 28
Joel Sereboff, et ux. v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc.
No. 05-260
Subject:
Resources:
Peter K. StrisFor Respondent Mid Atlantic Med. Servs:
Whittier Law School
Costa Mesa, CA
Gregory Scott Coleman
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Austin, TX
Salim Ahmed Hamdan v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et
al.
No. 05-184
Subject:
Resources:
Neal KatyalFor Respondents Rumsfeld, et al.:
Washington, DC
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
Wednesday, March 29
Moises Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
No. 04-10566
Mario A. Bustillo v. Gene M. Johnson, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections
No. 05-51
Subject:
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, No. 04-10566Decisions:Bustillo v. Johnson, No. 05-51
- Does the Vienna Convention convey individual rights of consular notification and access to a foreign detainee enforceable in the Courts of the United States?
- Does the state's failure to notify a foreign detainee of his rights under the Vienna Convention result in the suppression of his statements to police?
Whether, contrary to the International Court of Justice's interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101, state courts may refuse to consider violations of Article 36 of that treaty because of a procedural bar or because the treaty does not create individually enforceable rights.
Resources:
Peter GartlanFor Respondent Oregon:
Office of Public Defense Services
Salem, OR
Mary H. WilliamsFor Petitioner Bustillo:
State Solicitor General
Salem, OR
Jeffrey A. LamkenFor Respondent Johnson:
Baker Botts LLP
Washington, DC
William E. Thro
State Solicitor General
Richmond, VA
eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
No. 05-130
Subject:
Resources:
Carter G. PhillipsFor Respondent MercExchange:
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
Seth P. Waxman
WilmerHale
Washington, DC
To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader