Calendar of Oral Arguments

Monday, October 1, 2001

• 00-860    CORRECTIONAL SERVICES CORP. v. MALESKO, JOHN E.
  Questions presented: Whether a cause of action for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), should be implied against a private corporation acting under color of federal law.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-860    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1786    GREAT-WEST LIFE INS., ET AL. v. KNUDSON, JANETTE, ET VIR
  Questions presented: 1. This Court previously held in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248 (1993), that 'equitable relief, as used in 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3),means those types of relief that were typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages.) The Ninth Circuit held that enforcing a recoupment of benefits provision in a health plan violates this prohibition against seeking compensatory damages simply because recouping benefit payments involves a monetary payment. The Court therefore held that federal court lack subject matter jurisdiction over action brought by ERISA plan fiduciaries to enforce recoupment provisions. Did the Court err?
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1786    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 2, 2001

• 00-507    CHICKASAW NATION v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether, under the applicable Indian-law canons of statutory construction, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, by 25 U.S.C. 2719(d)(1)'s express incorporation of Chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code, confers on Indian tribes conducting gaming, operations the same exemption from wagering taxes afforded to states by Chapter 35 of the Internal Revenue Code?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-507    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-832    NATL. CABLE TV ASSN., INC. v. GULF POWER CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by cable television systems that are simultaneously used to provide high-speed Internet access and conventional cable television programming. 2. Whether those provisions of the Pole Attachments Act apply to attachments by providers of wireless telecommunications services. Consolidated with 00-843.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-843    FCC, ET AL. v. GULF POWER CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented: The case is consolidated with 00-832.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

• 00-568    NEW YORK, ET AL. v. FERC, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether, given that Congress in 1935 stated that federal regulation extends only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the states (Federal Power Act (FPA) 201 (a), and the transmission of energy from generators to retail customers in the same state was then subject to regulation by the states (as it has been since 1935), may the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) preempt state jurisdiction over such intrastate retail transmissions of electric energy?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-568    NEW YORK et al. v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-809    ENRON POWER MARKETING, INC. v. FERC
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 792 et seq., to regulate all transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce, including interstate transmission of electric energy that is sold to retail customers at a bundled price. Whether FERC had jurisdiction and the obligation under the EPA to eliminate pervasive undue discrimination in the provision of interstate electric energy transmission services by requiring transmission-owning utilities to provide interstate transmission services on the same terms to all users, for all interstate transmissions, including transmissions dundled with retail sales. Whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that FERC had discretion to interpret the FPA as denying FERC the necessary jurisdiction to remedy the undue discrimination it had found in the provision of interstate transmission.
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1996    J.E.M. AG SUPPLY, ET AL. v. PIONEER HI-BRED INTL.
  Questions presented: Are patents issued under 35 U.S.C. 101 Granting the right to exclude others from sexually reproducing plants or plant varieties, or from selling or using plants or plant varieties reproduced by means of sexual reproduction (by seed), invalid because the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970, 7 U.S.C.2321, et seq., and the Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U.S.C. 161-164, are the exclusive means of obtaining a federal statutory right to exclude others from reproducing, selling, or using plants or plant varieties?
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1996    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 9, 2001

• 00-1045    TRW INC. v. ANDREWS, ADELAIDE
  Questions presented: Whether Section 618 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act contains an implicit exception incorporating the discovery rule that permits a suit for violation of the Act to be brought within two years of the date of the discovery of the injury even in the absence of any willful misrepresentation.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1045    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-758    POSTAL SERVICE v. GREGORY, MARIA A.
  Questions presented: Whether a federal agency, when disciplining or removing an employee for misconduct pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., may take account of prior disciplinary action that are the subject of pending grievance proceedings.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-758    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 10, 2001

• 00-511    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS v. FCC, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 00-555, 00-587, 00-590, 00-602,
  Docket information  · 
• 00-511    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-555    WorldCOM, INC., ET AL. v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-587    FCC, ET AL. v. IOWA UTILITIES BD., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 00-511, 00-555, 00-587, 00-590, 00-602,
  Docket information  · 
• 00-590    AT&T CORP. v. IOWA UTILITIES BD., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding that 47 U.S.C. Sec. 252(d)(1) (Telecommunications Act of 1996) forecloses the cost methodology adopted by the FCC, which is based on the efficient replacement cost of existing technology, for determining the interconnection rates that new entrants into local telecommunications markets must pay incumbent local telephone companies. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that neither the Takings Clause nor the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the incorporation of an incumbent local exchange carrier's 'historical costs in to the rates that if may charge new entrants for access to its network elements. 3. Whether 47 U.S.C. Sec. 251(3)© prohibits regulators from requiring that incumbent local telephone companies combine certain previously uncombined network elements when a new entrant requests the combination and agrees to compensate the incumbent for performing that task. Consolidated with 00-511, 00-555, 00-587, 00-602.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-602    GEN. COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. IOWA UTILITIES BD., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 00-511, 00-555, 00-587, 00-590,
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1823    EEOC v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
  Questions presented: Whether an employee's agreement to arbitrate employment-related disputes with an employer bars the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as plaintiff in an enforcement action against the employer, from obtaining victim-specific remedies for discrimination against the employee, such as backpay, reinstatement, and damages.
  Docket information  · 
• 99-1823    EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, October 29, 2001

• 00-6567    DUSENBERY, LARRY D. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: 1. Should this court grant certiorari to resolve the split among the circuits as to whether a prisoner must receive Actual Notice regarding a forfeiture notification?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-6567    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-6933    LEE, REMON v. KEMNA, SUPT., CROSSROADS
  Questions presented: 1. Did the U.S. court of appeals for the eighth circuit err by affirming the district court's denial of lee's petition for habeas corpus because his rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United states Constitution were violated when the trial court refused to grant him a 19 hour continuance to contact his three subpoenaed alibi witnesses who unexpectedly did not return after a lunch break? 2. Should a hearing have been held on the habeas corpus to at least consider the testimony of the alibi witnesses to the effect that they were told by a court personnel, to leave? 3. In the circumstances in Remon Lee's case , was his federal violation regarding a denied request for a short continuance, procedurally barred from federal court? 4. Has Remon Lee made a substantial showing of actual innocence according to the schlup standard for his alibi witnesses to be explored further to prevent a fundamental miscarriage of justice?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-6933    REMON LEE, PETITIONER v. MIKE KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT, CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 30, 2001

• 00-795    ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN., ET AL. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION
  Questions presented: The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, prohibits, interalia, the shipment, distribution, receipt, reproduction, sale, or possession of any visual depiction that appears to be of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2252A, 2256(8)(B) (Supp. IV 1998). It also contains a similar prohibition concerning any visual depiction that is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. 2252A, 2256(8)(D) (Supp. IV 1998). The question presented is whether those prohibitions violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-795    ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-957    KANSAS v. CRANE, MICHAEL T.
  Questions presented: Whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a State to prove that a sexually violent predator cannot control his criminal sexual behavior before the State can civilly commit him for residential care and treatment?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-957    KANSAS, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL T. CRANE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

• 00-730    ADARAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. MINETA, SEC. OF TRANSP.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the court of appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard in determining if Congress had a compelling interest to enact legislation designed to remedy the effects of racial discrimination. 2. Whether the United States Department of Transportation's current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-927    CHAO, SEC. OF LABOR v. MALLARD BAY DRILLING, INC.
  Questions presented: Whether the United States Coast Guard has exercised statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or regulations affecting occupational safety or health concerning the working conditions of employees (29 U.S.C.653(b)(1) on uninspected vessels (46 U.S.C. 2101(43) so as to displace application of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-927    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 5, 2001

• 00-1214    ALABAMA v. SHELTON, LeREED
  Questions presented: In the light of the actual imprisonment standard established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), and refined in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), does the imposition of a suspended or conditional sentence in a misdemeanor case invoke a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1214    ALABAMA v. SHELTON.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-9285    MICKENS, WALTER, JR. v. TAYLOR, WARDEN
  Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that a defendant must show an actual conflict of interest and an adverse effect in order to establish a Sixth Amendment violation where a trial court fails to inquire into a potential conflict of interest about which it reasonably should have known?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-9285    MICKENS v. TAYLOR, WARDEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 6, 2001

• 00-1260    UNITED STATES v. KNIGHTS, MARK J.
  Questions presented: Whether respondent's agreement to a term of probation that authorized any law enforcement officer to search his person or premises with or without a warrant, and with or without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing, constituted a valid consent to a search by a law enforcement officer investigating crimes.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1260    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-973    UNITED STATES v. VONN, ALPHONSO
  Questions presented: 1. Whether a district court's failure to advise a counseled defendant at his guilty plea hearing that he has the right to the assistance of counsel at trial, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11©(3), is subject to plain -error, rather than harmless-error, review on appeal when the defendant fails to preserve the claim of error of error in the district court. 2. Whether, in determining if a defendant's substantial rights were affected by a district court's deviation from the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 ©(3), the court of appeals may review only the transcript of the guilty plea colloquy, or whether it may also consider other parts of the official record.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-973    UNITED STATES v. VONN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 7, 2001

• 00-1089    TOYOTA MOTOR MFG., KY, INC. v. WILLIAMS, ELLA
  Questions presented: Whether the Sixth Circuit correctly held--in conflict with the established rule in other circuits--that an impairment precluding an individual form performing only a limited number of tasks associated with a specific job qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1089    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1307    BARNHART, COMMR, SOC SEC v. SIGMON COAL CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Coal Act permits the Commissioner to assign beneficiaries to the successor in interest of a signatory operator that is no longer in business.
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 26, 2001

• 00-1514    RAYGOR, LANCE, ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF MN
  Questions presented: Is the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), insofar as it applies to a state defendant, unconstitutional?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-9280    KELLY, WILLIAM A. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented: Whether the South Carolina court's refusal to inform petitioner's sentencing jury that he would never be eligible for parole if the jury sentenced him to life imprisonment rather than to death violated Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994).
  Docket information  · 
• 00-9280    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 27, 2001

• 00-1073    OWASSO INDEP. SCH. DIST. v. FALVO, KRISTJA, ETC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Family Education Right and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232 g, which requires educational institutions to preserve the confidentiality of education records, which are defined as those records, files documents, and other materials which -(I) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution, 1232g(a) (4) (A), prohibits public school teachers of pre-secondary school students form utilizing their students to grade each other's homework papers, quizzes, and test by having the students exchange papers and mark he correct and incorrect answers thereon as the teacher goes over the answers aloud in class.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1073    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1519    UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU, RALPH
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the court of appeals erroneously departed from the totality-of-the-circumstances test that governs reasonable-suspicion determinations under the Fourth Amendment by holding that seven facts observed by a law enforcement officer were entitled to no weight and could not be considered as a matter of law. 2. Whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the Border Patrol agent in this case had reasonable suspicion that justified a stop of a vehicle near the Mexican border.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1519    UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. RALPH ARVIZU
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 28, 2001

• 00-1187    McKUNE, WARDEN, ET AL. v. LILE, ROBERT G.
  Questions presented: Whether the revocation of correctional institution privileges violates the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination where the inmate has no liberty interest in the lost privileges and such revocation is based upon the inmate's failure to accept responsibility for his crimes as part of a sex offender treatment program?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1187    McKUNE, WARDEN, ET AL. v. LILE.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1293    ASHCROFT, ATTY. GEN. v. ACLU, ET AL.
  Questions presented: The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) makes it unlawful to make any communication for commercial purposes by means of the World Wide Web that is available to minors and that includes material that is harmful to minors, unless good faith efforts are made to prevent children from obtaining access to such material. 47 U.S.C 231.(a)(1) and © (1) (Supp. IV 1998).
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1293    ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 3, 2001

• 00-1249    THOMAS, CAREN C., ET AL. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT
  Questions presented: 1. Does immediate access to the courts following a denial of a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum constitute prompt judicial review, as required by Freedman v. Maryland, without regard to the length of time allowed for a judicial decision? 2. Must an ordinance requiring a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum include each of the procedural safeguards established in Freedman v. Maryland, or is that case only applicable to sexually explicit speech presented by adult entertainment businesses? 2. Is a content-neutral ordinance that requires a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum analyzed as a prior restraint or under the more deferential standard applicable to time, place and manner regulations? 4. May a plaintiff bring a facial challenge to a permit ordinance which restricts political speech in a public forum without first having to prove that the ordinance has been unconstitutionally applied to him because of the government's hostility to the plaintiff or his proposed speech? 5. Can an ordinance requiring a permit for core political speech in a traditional public forum include unfettered discretion to issue or withold permits?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1249    CAREN CRONK THOMAS and WINDY CITY HEMP DEVELOPMENT BOARD, PETITIONERS v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-952    WI DEPT. OF HEALTH & FAMILY v. BLUMER, IRENE
  Questions presented: Whether the income first requirement of the Wisconsin Medicaid spousal impoverishment statute, Wis. State. 49.455(8)(d), requiring that the income of the institutionalized spouse be attributed to the community spouse before excess resources are transferred to the community spouse, conflicts with 42 U.S.C. 1396r-5.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-952    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 4, 2001

• 00-1250    US AIRWAYS, INC. v. BARNETT, ROBERT
  Questions presented: 1. Whether, as the en banc Ninth Circuit held below, the ADA requires an employer to reassign a disabled employee to a different position as a ''reasonable accommodation'' even though another employee is entitled to hold the position under the employer's bona fide and established seniority system, or whether, as other courts of appeals have held, the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement does not compel an employer to disregard the rights of other employees under its seniority policy.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1250    US AIRWAYS, INC. v. BARNETT.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-799    LOS ANGELES, CA v. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Is a city's ordinance, which prohibits the operation of more than one adult entertainment business at a single location, including an adult bookstore and an adult arcade, invalid because the city did not study the negative effects of such combinations of adult businesses, but rather relied on judicially approved statutory precedent from other jurisdictions?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-799    CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 5, 2001

• 00-1531    VERIZON MARYLAND INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N OF MD
  Questions presented: 2. Whether , if 47 U.S.C. 252(e)(6) does not apply, a federal district court has independent subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 to determine whether a state public utility commission's action interpreting or enforcing an interconnection agreement violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1531    VERIZON MARYLAND INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1711    UNITED STATES v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N OF MD
  Questions presented: 2. Whether a federal district court has subjectmatter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 to determine whether a state commission's action interpreting or enforcing an interconnection agreement violates the 1996 Act.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-878    MATHIAS, RICHARD L., ET AL. v. WorldCOM TECH., INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether a state commission's action relating to the enforcement of a previously approved section 252 interconnection agreement is a 'determination under section 252 and thus is reviewable in federal court under 47 U.S.C. Sect. 252 (e)(6). 2. Whether a state commission's acceptance of Congress's invitation to participate in implementing a federal regulatory scheme that provided that state commission determinations are reviewable in federal court constitutes a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. 3. Whetheran official capacity action seeking prospective relief against state public utility commissioners for alleged ongoing violations of federal law in performing federal regulatory functions under the federal Telecommunication Act to 1996 can be maintained under the Ex parte Young doctrine.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-878    MATHIAS ET AL. v. WORLDCOM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 7, 2002

• 00-1167    TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
  Questions presented: Whether the Court of Appeals properly determined that a temporary moratorium on land development does not constitute a taking of property requiring compensation under the Taking Clause of the United States Constitution?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1167    TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., ET AL. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-6029    RAGSDALE, TRACY v. WOLVERINE WORLDWIDE, INC.
  Questions presented: Whether the Secretary has acted permissibly in providing by regulation that (with certain exceptions) employer-provided leave does not count against the Act's 12 week entitlement until the employer notifies the employee of its designation as FMLA leave.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-6029    RAGSDALE et al. v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 8, 2002

• 00-1072    EDELMAN, LEONARD v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE
  Questions presented: 1. Is C.F.R. 1601.12(b), which provides that a Title Vll charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including the failure to verify the charge, invalid?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1072    EDELMAN v. LYNCHBURG COLLEGE.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1543    FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO CO.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether every claim-narrowing amendment designed to comply with any provision of the Patent Act---including those provisions not related to prior art---automatically creates prosecution history estoppel regardless of the reason for the amendment; and 2. Whether the finding of prosecution history estoppel completely bars the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1543    FESTO CORP. v. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 9, 2002

• 00-1567    YOUNG, CORNELIUS P., ET UX. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Youngs' 1992 income tax obligation was discharged by the entry of a discharge in their 1997 chapter 7 bankruptcy case where the three-year period set forth at 507(a)(8)(A)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code had elapsed between the due date of their tax return and the filing of their chapter 7 bankruptcy case. 2. Whether the three-year period set forth at Bankruptcy Code 507(a)(8)(A)(I) was tolled or extended by the length of time that the Youngs were debtors in a prior chapter 13 bankruptcy, notwithstanding the absence of any language in 507(a)(8)(A)(I) or elsewhere that would allow such tolling.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1567    YOUNG ET UX. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1614    NATL. RR PASSENGER CORP. v. MORGAN, ABNER
  Questions presented: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in conflict with every other circuit that has decided the question, that a plaintiff who has knowingly allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination statutes may nevertheless sue on such time-barred claims whenever incidents within the limitations period are sufficiently related to the otherwise time-barred claims.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1614    NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION v. MORGAN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 14, 2002

• 00-1831    UNITED STATES v. CRAFT, SANDRA L.
  Questions presented: Whether the federal tax lien that arises by operation of law in law property and rights to property of a delinquent taxpayer (26 U.S.C. 6321) attaches to the rights of that taxpayer in property held in a tenancy by the entirety.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1831    UNITED STATES v. CRAFT.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-853    PORTER, CORRECTION OFFICER v. NUSSLE, RONALD
  Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals erroneously conclude, contrary to other of appeals, that an inmate bringing a claim for excessive force need not have exhausted available administrative remedies pursuant to the Prison Legal Reform Act's mandatory exhaustion requirement, 42 U.S.C.1997e(a)?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-853    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 15, 2002

• 00-1595    HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUND v. NLRB
  Questions presented: Whether an undocumented alien who-without his employer's knowledge-obtained employment by presenting his employer with fraudulent immigration documents, is entitled to backpay as compensation for a violation of the National Labor Relations Act if the undocumented alien never was legally authorized to work in the United States during the backpay period.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1595    HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1853    SWIERKIEWICZ, AKOS v. SOREMA N.A.
  Questions presented: Must an employment discrimination plaintiff do more in his complaint than put his employer on notice of his discrimination claims, I.e., must he also plead specific facts showing that at trial he can make out a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas v. Green?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1853    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the pre v.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 16, 2002

• 00-1021    RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. v. MORAN, DEBRA, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the independent review provision of the Illinois HMO Act, which is similar to laws adopted in 37 state and the District of Columbia, is preempted by ERISA.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1021    RUSH PRUDENTIAL HMO, INC. v. MORAN ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1937    BARNHART, COMMR., SSA v. WALTON, CLEVELAND B.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether a claimant is entitled to disability benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act if he has a physical or mental impairment that has lasted or can be expected to last at least 12 months, but his inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of that impairment has not lasted or cannot be expected to last 12 months. 2. Whether a claimant under Title II may be under a disability and entitled to a trial work period if at the time his disability insurance benefits claim is adjudicated, his impairment no longer prevents him from performing substantial gainful activity.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1937    BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY v. WALTON.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, February 19, 2002

• 00-1214    ALABAMA v. SHELTON, LeREED
  Questions presented: In the light of the actual imprisonment standard established in Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972), and refined in Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), does the imposition of a suspended or conditional sentence in a misdemeanor case invoke a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1214    ALABAMA v. SHELTON.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1770    HUD v. RUCKER, PEARLIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the lease clause provided for in 42 U.S.C.1437d(l)(6) (Supp. IV 1998) is violated by such drugrelated criminal activity, regardless of whether it can be shown that the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of the drug activity.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1770    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1781    OAKLAND HOUSING AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. RUCKER, PEARLIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 00-1770
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

• 00-1751    ZELMAN, SUPT. OF PUB. INSTR. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, DORIS, ET AL
  Questions presented: Whether the Establishment Clause prohibits Ohio's program form authorizing parents to use the scholarship at any private school, whether religious or not.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1751    ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1777    HANNA PERKINS SCHOOL, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, DORIS, ET AL
  Questions presented: Whether the Ohio Pilot Scholarship and Tutorial Program, which provides scholarship and tutorial funds to a broad class of public and non-public school, low income families comports with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment when the recipients are defined without reference to religion and where the identity of the public, secular or religious school of attendance is the result of the independent and free choice of various individuals participating in the Program.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1779    TAYLOR, SENEL, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS, DORIS, ET AL
  Questions presented: 1. Does a program designed to rescue economically disadvantaged children form a failing public school system by providing scholarships that they may use in private, religious, or suburban public school that choose to participate in the program-and which operates in the context of a broad array of public school choices-violate the First Amendment because in the early stages of the program most of the schools that have agreed to take on scholarship students are religiously affiliated?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-8452    ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA
  Questions presented: 1. In Lilly v. Virginia, this Court declared that for purposes of determining whether the Confrontation Clause precludes the admission of a hearsay statement, the admissibility of the selfinculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement should be assessed separately. Must courts determining whether the Due Process clause mandates the admission of a statement under Green v. Georgia and Mills v. Maryland similarly engage in a separate assessment of the admissibility of the self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement? 2. Did he Supreme Court of Virginia err when, in the sentencing phase of a capital trial, it summarily invoked a state hearsay rule to preclude the defendant from presenting relevant, important, and independently reliable mitigating evidence that the defendant had no other means of presenting to the jury?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-8452    ATKINS v. VIRGINIA.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, February 25, 2002

• 01-298    LAPIDES, PAUL D. v. BD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF GA
  Questions presented: Does a State waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity by its affirmative litigation conduct when it removes a case to federal court and then seeks a dispositive ruling?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-298    LAPIDES v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-46    FED. MARITIME COMM'N v. SC STATE PORTS AUTHORITY
  Questions presented: Whether Congress may by statute authorize the Federal Maritime Commission to adjudicate complaints filed by private persons against state-run ports, or whether the statutory provision permitting the adjudication of such complaints is barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-46    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION v. SOUTH CAROLINA STATE PORTS AUTHORITY et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

• 00-1737    WATCHTOWER BIBLE, ETC. v. STRATTON, OH, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Does a municipal ordinance that requires one to obtain a permit prior to engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause and to display upon demand the permit, which contains one's name, violate the First Amendment protection accorded to anonymous pamphleteering or discourse?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1737    WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., et al. v. VILLAGE OF STRATTON ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-344    THOMPSON, SEC. OF H&HS v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENT.
  Questions presented: The question presented is whether FDAMA's limitation of that exemption to pharmacists who do not solicit prescriptions for or advertise specific compounded drugs is consistent with the First Amendment,
  Docket information  · 
• 01-344    THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, February 27, 2002

• 00-1406    CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. v. ECHAZABAL, MARIO
  Questions presented: Whether a person who is unable to carry out the essential functions of a job without incurring significant risks to the person's own health or life is a qualified individual who satisfies qualified standards for that job within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Docket information  · 
• 00-1406    CHEVRON U. S. A. INC. v. ECHAZABAL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-301    CAREY, WARDEN v. SAFFOLD, TONY EUGENE
  Questions presented: Whether the time during which a petitioner has failed to properly pursue hi state collateral remedies falls within the meaning of pending set forth by 28 U.S.C. section 2233(d)(2), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's tolling provision.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-301    CAREY, WARDEN v. SAFFOLD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 18, 2002

• 00-10666    HARRIS, WILLIAM J. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether Brandished as used in 18 U.S.C. 924(C) (1) (A) is an element of the offense or a sentencing factor?
  Docket information  · 
• 00-10666    HARRIS v. UNITED STATES.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-147    SEC v. ZANDFORD, CHARLES
  Questions presented: Whether a stockbroker's fraud is connection with the * * * sale of securities under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, when the stockbroker sells his customer's securities for his own benefit and uses the proceeds for himself, without disclosure to his customer and without authorization to do so.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-147    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ZANDFORD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

• 01-332    BD. OF ED., POTTAWATOMIE CTY v. EARLS, LINDSAY, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals properly determined that s board of education cannot validly exercise its judgment in an effort to deter and eliminate student drug use by enacting a suspicionless drugtesting policy covering students who voluntarily engage in interscholastic competition unless the board has first specifically identified and quantified the actual drug has first specifically identified and quantified the actual drug users among the students to be tested.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-332    BOARD OF EDUCATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY v. EARLS ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-408    HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION
  Questions presented: 1. Does 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1)divest regional Circuits of jurisdiction to decide appeals of final decisions of district courts in cases wherein the well-pleaded complaint of the prevailing plaintiff does not allege any claim arising under federal law? 3. Did the Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit err in concluding that this action arises under federal patent law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) and 1338(a)?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-408    HOLMES GROUP, INC. v. VORNADO AIR CIRCULATION SYSTEMS, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 20, 2002

• 01-131    GISBRECHT, GARY E., ET AL. v. BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA
  Questions presented: Whether, when determining a reasonable attorney fee to be paid by the plaintiff's attorney pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 406 (b), a court may give no effect to the plaintiff's contract to compensate plaintiff's attorney in terms of a contingent fee taking into account the contingent nature of the fee even when the contingent fee requested is within the statutory limitation of 42 U.S.C. 406(b) for an attorney fee not to exceed 25 percent of the total of the past due benefits, even when it is a criminal offense for an attorney to charge a non-contingent fee, and even when the contingent fee sought is consistent with the prevailing market rate.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-131    GISBRECHT ET AL. v. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-584    ADAMS, WANDA, ET AL. v. FL POWER CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Is a disparate impact method of proving age discrimination available to plaintiffs suing under the ADEA?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-584    ADAMS ET AL. v. FLORIDA POWER CORP. ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 25, 2002

• 01-394    CHRISTOPHER, WARREN, ET AL. v. HARBURY, JENNIFER K.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether allegations that senior State Department and National Security Council official withheld information and intentionally misled a private citizen about a foreign rebel leader in the captivity of a foreign government state a violation of the constitutional right of access to the court, when the only claim is that defendants' speech was intentionally misleading and there are no allegations that the plaintiff ever tried to file a lawsuit and was actually hindered in that effort? 2. If the Court concludes that a constitutional violation is properly grounded on allegations such as these, whether government officials violate clearly established law whenever government officials violate clearly established law whenever they allegedly mislead a private citizen or conceal information and it is later claimed that they intended to and did hinder the filing of a hypothetical lawsuit?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-394    CHRISTOPHER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. v. HARBURY.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-400    BELL, WARDEN v. CONE, GARY B.
  Questions presented: 1. By applying a de novo standard of review to a habeas petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, does the court of appeals' ruling conflict with Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S.C. 2254 (d)(1) for granting habeas corpus relief to state prisoners on claims that have been previously adjudicated on the merits in state court? 2. May a federal court of appeals bypass the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and presume prejudice under United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984), to find a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, where defense counsel conducts a thorough pre-trial investigation, presents lay and expert witness testimony in support of a mental health defense at trial, conducts direct and cross examination, and addresses the jury at both the guilt and sentencing phase on behalf of his client, and where the state and district courts have previously determined that the defendant demonstrated no actual prejudice from any deficiencies identified in the attorney's performance?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-400    BELL, WARDEN v. CONE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 26, 2002

• 01-417    DEVLIN, ROBERT J. v. SCARDELLETTI, ROBERT, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether a class member who, upon receiving notice of a proposed class action settlement, objects and moves to intervene has standing to appeal the district court's approval of the settlement?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-417    DEVLIN v. SCARDELLETTI et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-521    REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MN v. KELLY, VERNA, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the provision of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct the prohibits a candidate for elective judicial office from announcing his or her views on disputed legal for political issues unconstitutionally impinges on the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-521    REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA ET AL. v. WHITE, CHAIRPERSON, MINNESOTA BOARD OF JUDICIAL STANDARDS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 27, 2002

• 01-714    UTAH, ET AL. v. EVANS, SEC. OF COMMERCE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-714    UTAH ET AL. v. EVANS, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 15, 2002

• 01-455    FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: 1. Whether a breach of contract claim accrues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2501 when Congress enacts a statute alleged to abridge a contractual right to freedom from regulatory covenants upon prepayment of government mortgage loans. 2. Whether a Fifth Amendment takings claim accrues for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 2501 when Congress enacts a statute alleged to abridge a contractual right to freedom from regulatory covenants upon prepayment of government mortgage loans.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-455    FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-687    UNITED STATES v. COTTON, LEONARD, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence requires a court of appeals automatically to vacate the enhanced sentence, notwithstanding that the defendant did not object to the sentence in the district court, the government introduced overwhelming proof of the fact that supports the enhanced sentence, and the defendant had notice that the fact could be used to seek an enhanced sentence.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-687    UNITED STATES v. COTTON ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 16, 2002

• 01-518    BE&K CONSTR. CO. v. NLRB, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that under Bill johnson 's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983), the NLRB may impose liability on an employer for filing a losing retaliatory lawsuit, even if the employer could show the suit was not objectively baseless under Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993)?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-518    BE&K CONSTRUCTION CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-631    UNITED STATES v. DRAYTON, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether an officer who informs a passenger on a bus that the officer is conducting drug and illegal weapons interdiction and asks the passenger for consent to search, while another officer stays at the front of the bus without blocking the exit, has effected a seizure of that passenger within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S.429 (1991).
  Docket information  · 
• 01-631    UNITED STATES v. DRAYTON et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 17, 2002

• 01-309    HOPE, LARRY v. PELZER, MARK, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether state officials sued in their individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. 1983 are entitled to qualified immunity unless they have violated statutory or constitutional rights 'clearly established' by a case presenting facts 'materially similar' to those in the plaintiff's case. 2. Whether under the circumstances that must be taken as true at the summary judgment stage of this case, tying a prisoner to a 'hitching post' violates 'clearly established' constitutional right for purposes of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-309    HOPE v. PELZER ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-651    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI)
  Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit err when it held, contrary to the holdings of the Third, Fourth and Seventh Circuits, that citizens of the British Virgin Islands, were not citizens or subjects of a foreign state for the purposes of alienage jurisdiction and thus could not maintain an action in Federal Court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2)?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-651    JPMORGAN CHASE BANK v. TRAFFIC STREAM (BVI) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 22, 2002

• 01-463    UNITED STATES v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC.
  Questions presented: Whether the employer's share of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax on employee tip income must be determined by accumulating the result of individual audits of individual employees or may instead be based on a reasonable estimate of the aggregate amount of tips received by all employees.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-463    UNITED STATES v. FIOR D'ITALIA, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-488    RING, TIMOTHY S. v. ARIZONA
  Questions presented: Whether Walton should be overruled in light of this Court's subsequent holding, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed (id.at 490 (internal quotation marks omitted) violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-488    RING v. ARIZONA.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 23, 2002

• 01-419    COLUMBUS, OH, ET AL. v. OURS GARAGE & WRECKER SERV.
  Questions presented: Does 49 U.S.C. 14501© of the Interstate Commerce Act permit cities to enact safety regulations regarding local tow-truck operations as the Second Circuit and the California regulations, as the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-419    CITY OF COLUMBUS ET AL. v. OURS GARAGE AND WRECKER SERVICE, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-682    BARNES, KAY, ETC., ET AL. v. GORMAN, JEFFREY
  Questions presented: Whether the Eighth Circuit, in agreement with the Fourth Circuit but in conflict with the Third and Sixth Circuits, correctly held that punitive damages may be awarded against a municipal government in an implied private cause of action brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Section 202 of the ADA.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-682    BARNES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS v. GORMAN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 24, 2002

• 01-595    UNITED STATES v. RUIZ, ANGELA
  Questions presented: 1. Whether before pleading guilty, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to obtain exculpatory information, including impeachment material, from the government. 2. If so, whether that right may be waived through a plea agreement.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-595    UNITED STATES v. RUIZ.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-679    GONZAGA UNIV., ET AL. v. DOE, JOHN
  Questions presented: 1. May a student sue a private university for damages under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enforce provisions of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, which disqualify form federal funding educational institutions that have a policy or practice of permitting education records to be released to unauthorized persons?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-679    GONZAGA UNIVERSITY ET AL. v. DOE.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, October 7, 2002

• 01-270    YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. v. MICHIGAN, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in holding that, under 49 U.S.C. 115069( C) (2) (B) (iv) (III) (1994) and U.S.C. 14504( C) (2) (B) (iv) (III) (Supp. V 1999), only a State's generic fee is relevant to determining the fee that was 'collected or charged' as of November 15, 1991.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-896    FORD MOTOR CO., ET AL. v. McCAULEY, JOHN B., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the cost to the defendant of complying with an injunction sought by a plaintiff's class may satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement of the diversity statute, where such compliance would cost the defendant more than the $75,000 minimum whether it covered the entire class or any single member of the class.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 8, 2002

• 01-653    FCC v. NextWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 525, conflicts with and displaces the Federal Communications Commission's rules for congressionally authorized spectrum auction, which provide that wireless telecommunications licenses obtained at auction automatically cancel upon the winning bidder's failure to make timely payments to fulfill its winning bid.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-657    ARCTIC SLOPE CORP., ET AL. v. NextWAVE COM., INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 525, prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from canceling a radio spectrum license where the agency has determined, in an exercise of its regulatory authority, that such cancellation is necessary to ensure that licenses are granted to those most likely to use them efficiently for the benefit of the public.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-705    BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA v. PEABODY COAL CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented: The question presented is whether the Commissioner's assignments of responsibility for retired miners that were made on or after October 1, 1993, are void.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-715    HOLLAND, MICHAEL H., ET AL. v. BELLAIRE CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented: The question presented, which has been answered in the affirmative by the Fourth Circuit and in the negative by the Sixth Circuit, is whether SSA retained authority to make initial assignments of Combined Fund beneficiaries after September 30, 1993.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 9, 2002

• 01-618    ELDRED, ERIC, ET AL. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
  Questions presented: 1. Did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that Congress has the power under the Copyright Clause to extend retrospectively the term of existing copyrights? 2. Is a law that extends the term of existing and future copyrights categorically immune from challenge under the First Amendment? 3. May a circuit court consider arguments raised by a party, on a claim properly raised by a party?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-800    HOWSAM, KAREN, ETC. v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS
  Questions presented: The question presented is whether a court or the arbitrators should decide if claims are eligible for arbitration under a self-regulatory organization's arbitration code provision that [n]o dispute, claim, or controversy shall be eligible for submission to arbitration under this Code where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the act or dispute, claim or controversy.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 15, 2002

• 01-706    SPRIETSMA, REX R. v. MERCURY MARINE
  Questions presented: (1) The Act expressly provides that compliance with this chapter or standards, regulations, or orders prescribed under this chapter does not relieve a person from liability at common law or under State law (46 U.S.C. 4311(g) ); (2) the U.S. Coast Guard has never adopted any standard or regulation with respect to propeller guards; and (3) the United States has taken the position that common law no-propeller-guard claims do not conflict with or otherwise frustrate any federal statutory or regulatory purpose?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-757    SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION v. HENSON, HURLEY
  Questions presented: Whether the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 1651(a), vests federal district courts with authority to exercise removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.1441 over lawsuits brought in state court when the state court suit threatens the integrity of the federal court's rulings in ongoing complex litigation.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

• 01-704    UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. BEAN, THOMAS L.
  Questions presented: Under federal law, a person who is convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing firearms. The Secretary of the Treasury, acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), may grant relief from that prohibition if it is established to his satisfaction that certain preconditions are established. See 18 U.S.C. 925©. 925©. Since 1992, however, every appropriations law for ATF has specified that AFT may not expend any appropriated funds to act upon applications for such relief. The question presented is whether, despite that appropriations, a federal district court has authority to grant relief from firearms disabilities to persons convicted of a felony.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-7662    MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. COCKRELL, DIR. TX DCJ
  Questions presented: 1. Whether a court is required to ignore uncontested evidence of a pattern and practice of racial discrimination, and evidence of contemporaneous instances of discrimination, when assessing the genuineness of the alleged discriminator's proffered race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge? 2. Whether the court of appeals incorrectly concluded that 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2) and 2254(e) (1) require a habeas corpus petitioner to rebut state court determinations of fact by proving them unreasonable by clear and convincing evidence? 3. When assessing whether the state court decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, may a federal court ignore the unreasonableness of the process by which the state court determined the facts? 4. Whether 2254(d) (2)embodies a presumption of correctness applicable to state court factfindings or a standard for assessing when a petitioner is entitled to relief?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 4, 2002

• 01-1229    PIERCE COUNTY, WA v. GUILLEN, IGNACIO, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether 23 U.S.C. 409, which protects certain documents compiled or collected in connection with certain federal highway safety programs from being discovered or admitted in federal or state trials, is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Supremacy, Spending, Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses of the United States Constitution. 2. Whether private plaintiffs have standing to assert states' rights under the Tenth Amendment where their State's Legislative and Executive branches expressly approve and accept the benefits and terms of the federal statute in question.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-7574    SATTAZAHN, DAVID A. v. PENNSYLVANIA
  Questions presented: 1. Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bar imposition of the death penalty upon reconviction after an initial conviction, set aside on appeal, in which the trial court imposed a statutorily mandated life sentence when the capital sentencing jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict? 2. Is a capital defendant's life and liberty interest in the imposition of a life sentence by operation of state law, following a capital sentencing hearing in which the sentencing jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, violated when his first conviction is later overturned and the state seeks and obtains a death sentence on retrial?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

• 01-1127    LOCKYER, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA v. ANDRADE, LEANDRO
  Questions presented: 1. Whether California's three-strikes law, providing for a twenty-five year-to-life prison term for a third strike conviction, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when applied to a defendant whose third strike conviction is for petty theft with a prior theft-related conviction? 2. Whether, in light of this Court's existing jurisprudence concerning the Eighth Amendment and proportionality in noncapital cases, the judgment of the California Court of Appeal, holding Andrade's consecutive twenty-five years to life sentences for convictions on two counts of petty theft with a prior, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by this Court within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1)? 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit or the Fourth Circuit is correct, concerning the necessity for a habeas court analyzing a claim under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, to first decide if the state court's determination was erroneous before deciding whether the determination was contrary to, or involved and unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-6978    EWING v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 01-1127
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 6, 2002

• 01-9094    ABDUR'RAHMAN, ABU-ALI. v. BELL, WARDEN
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding, in square conflict with decisions of this Court and of other circuits, that every Rule 60(b) Motion constitutes a prohibited second or successive habeas petition as a matter of law. 2. Whether a court of appeals abuses its discretion in refusing to permit consideration of a vital intervening legal development when the failure to do so precludes a habeas petitioner from ever receiving any adjudication of his claims on the merits.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-963    NORFOLK & WESTERN RWY. CO. v. AYERS, FREEMAN, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether it was error for the court below, in conflict with decisions of federal courts of appeals, state supreme courts and prevailing common-law principles, to award emotional-distress damages under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) to plaintiffs who presented no evidence of physical manifestation or other corroboration of injury related to their alleged fear of cancer? 2. Whether it was error for the court, in conflict with decisions of the federal courts of appeals, state supreme courts and evolving common-law principles, not to apportion damages under FELA among tortfeasors?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 12, 2002

• 01-1015    MOSELEY, VICTOR, ET UX., ETC. v. V SECRET CATALOGUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the plain meaning of the operative phrase causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, read in pari materia with the definition of dilution as the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services, requires objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of the famous mark (as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective likelihood of dilution standard) as a precondition to any and all relief under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1184    UNITED STATES v. RECIO, FRANCISCO J., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1184    UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. FRANCISCO JIMENEZ RECIO AND ADRIAN LOPEZ-MEZA.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 13, 2002

• 01-1231    CT DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY v. DOE, JOHN, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Did the Court of Appeals erroneously conclude, contrary to other courts of appeals and in a manner inconsistent with the Court's ruling in Paul v. Davis, that Connecticut's Sex Offender Registration Law implicates an offender's liberty interest by listing offenders in an undifferentiated Registry, and violates due process by failing to afford the offender a hearing regarding his current dangerousness before publishing true and accurate information about him and his conviction history?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-729    SMITH, ET AL. v. DOE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Alaska's sex offender registration act, Alaska State. 12.63.010 et seq., requires convicted sex offenders to register with the Alaska Department of Public Safety and makes offender information available to the public. The department elected to publish the information on the Internet. Does the statute, on its face or as implemented by the Department of Public Safety, impose punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United states Constitution?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 2, 2002

• 01-1067    UNITED STATES v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE
  Questions presented: In 1960, Congress declared that a former military post in Arizona would be held by the United States in trust for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, subject to the right of the Secretary of the Interior to use any part of the land and improvements for administrative or school purposes for as long as they are needed for that purpose. Act of Mar. 18, 1960, Pub. L. No. 86-392, 74 Stat. 8. The question presented is whether that Act authorizes the award of money damages against the United States for alleged breach of trust in connection with such property.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1375    UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION
  Questions presented: The Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA), 25 U.S.C. 369a et seq., and regulations thereunder, authorize an Indian Tribe, with the approval of the Secretary of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), to lease tribal lands for mining purposes. Whether the court of appeals properly held that the United states is liable to the Navajo Nation for up to $600 million in damages for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the Secretary's action concerning an Indian mineral lease, without finding that the Secretary had violated any specific statutory or regulatory duty established pursuant to the IMLA.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 3, 2002

• 01-1120    MEYER, DAVID, ETC. v. HOLLEY, EMMA MARY, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Under well-established rules of agency law, an owner or corporate officer will not be held vicariously liable for the torts of his corporation or its other agents, merely by virtue of his office. Rather, liability must be founded upon the owner's or officer's own specific acts. Whether, as held by the Ninth Circuit, the criteria under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) are different, so that owners and officers of corporations are absolutely liable for an employee's or agent's violation of the Act, whether or not they personally directed, authorized, or were even aware of the particular acts that occurred.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1420    WA DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH v. GUARDIANSHIP OF KEFFELER
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 4, 2002

• 01-1118    SCHEIDLER, JOSEPH, ET AL. v. NOW, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit correctly held, in acknowledged conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that injunctive relief is available in a private civil action for treble damages brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1964©. 2. Whether the Hobbs Act, which makes it a crime to obstruct, delay, or affect interstate commerce 'by robbery or extortion- and which defines extortion as the obtaining of property form another, with [the owner's] consent, where such consent is induced by the wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear' (18 U.S.C. 1951 (b)(2) (emphasisadded))- criminalizes the activities of political protesters who engage in sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct the public's access to a business's premises and interfere with the freedom of putative customers to obtain services offered there.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1119    OPERATION RESCUE v. NOW, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: The case is consolidated with 01-1118.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1444    CHAVEZ, BEN v. MARTINEZ, OLIVERIO
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1444    BEN CHAVEZ, PETITIONER v. OLIVERIO MARTINEZ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 9, 2002

• 01-1209    BOEING CO., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, correctly concluded that Treas. Reg 1.861-8(e)(3), which governs the allocation of research and development costs between foreign and domestic income for export subsidiaries entitled to special tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1325    BROWN v. LEGAL FOUNDATION OF WA
  Questions presented: In phillips v. Washington Legal Found., 524 U.S. 156 (1998), the Court held that the interest on clients' funds held in so-called IOLTA account (Interest on Lawyer's Trust Accounts) was the property of the clients. This case presents two questions: 1. Whether the regulatory scheme for funding state legal services by systematically seizing this property violates Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution so that the property owners are entitled to relief. 2. Whether injunctive relief is available to enjoin a State form committing such a violation of the Takings Clause, where the legislative scheme in issue clearly contemplates that no compensation would be paid to the owners of the interest taken, and where the small amount due in any individual case often renders recovery through litigation impractical.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1382    UNITED STATES v. BOEING SALES CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented: This suit challeges the validity of the Treasury regulation (26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(e)(3) (1979)) that governs the application of research and development expenses in the computation of the combined taxable income of cross-respondent and its parent (and affiliates) under the foreign sales corporation provisions of the Code.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

• 01-1243    BORDEN RANCH, ET AL. vs. U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGRS. v. NULL
  Questions presented: The issue presented by his case is whether a farmer needs a federal permit to plow his agriculturally-zoned ranchland to plant new crops. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to require permits only for those activities that discharge or add a pollutant form a point source into waters of the United states, and further expressly exempts normal farming and ranching activities, such as plowing, which do not convert the body of water into a use to which it was not previously subject. Petitioners acquired the Borden Ranch, an 8,400 acre property in California's Central Valley that is zoned for agricultural use, and sought to enhance portions of the land that previously had been used to grow forage crops for higher value vineyards and orchards. Petitioners did this by deep plowing to prepare the soil for these deep-rooted crops. The Army Corps asserted jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act over these plowing activities, claiming petitioners were discharging pollutants into seasonal wetlands. The Ninth Circuit upheld this assertion of federal jurisdiction, over Judge Gould's dissent and in conflict with the D.C. Circuit's National Mining decision. 1. Does a rancher's deep plowing to enhance the soil's agricultural viability add a pollutant to a wetland so as to constitute a regulated point-source discharge within the meaning of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1437    BRANCH, BEATRICE, ET AL. v. SMITH, JOHN R., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Does Article I, 4 of the United States Constitution deprive state courts of general Jurisdiction of all power in congressional redistricting cases in the many states where no state statute explicitly speaks of such power? 2. If a state court, in the course of adhering to developments in the law, assumes Jurisdiction and hears a type of voting rights case it has never heard before, does it thereby enact or seek to administer [a] voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different form that in force and effect on November 1, 1964 (to quote Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 4 U.S.C. 1973c), such that the mere assumption of jurisdiction (independent of any remedial order) must be precleared by the United States Attorney General or the federal district court for the District of Columbia under Section 5? 3. Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities has (to quote Section 5) been submitted… to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, may a federal district court nevertheless prevent enforcement and extend the statutory sixty day review period on the basis of the Attorney General's request for additional information if the information sought is unnecessary and irrelevant to the Section 5 retrogression evaluation?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1596    SMITH, JOHN ROBERT, ET AL. v. BRANCH, BEATRICE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a©(5) requires a State whose representation in Congress has been reduced after a census to elect its Representatives from the State at large [u]ntil a state is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 11, 2002

• 01-1107    VIRGINIA v. BLACK, BARRY E., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1289    STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO. v. CAMPBELL, CURTIS, ET UX.
  Questions presented: Whether the Utah Supreme Court, in direct contravention of this Court's decision in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.559 (1996), and fundamental principles of due process, committed constitutional error by reinstating a $145 million punitive damage award that punishes out-of-state conduct, is 145 time greater than the compensatory damages in the case, and is based upon the defendant's alleged business practices nationwide over a twenty year period, which were unrelated and dissimilar to the conduct by the defendant that gave rise to the plaintiff's claims?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 13, 2003

• 01-1418    ARCHER, A. ELLIOTT, ET UX. v. WARNER, ARLENE L.
  Questions presented: Whether a promissory note given in settlement of pending litigation can constitue a nondischareable debt for money…or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit,…obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C 523 (a)(2)(A), where the parties execute a settlement affreement and general release of all claims of fraud or misrepresentation of underlying the litigation and all future claims arising from the same facts, where debtor has neither admitted nor been found to have engaged in fraud or misrepresentation underlying the litigation and all future claims arising from the same facts, where debtor has neither admitted nor been found to have engaged in fraud in connection with the events underlying the litigation, and where the creditor has failed to allege fraud in connection with the procurement of the settlement.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1500    CLAY, ERICK C. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Is a conviction final for purposes of 28 U. S. C. 2255 when (I) the appellate mandate issues on direct appeal (as the Seventh and Fourth Circuits hold), or instead (ii) when teh defedant’s time to petition for certiorari expires (as both Petitioner and federal government argued below and as the Third, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits hold).
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

• 00-1471    KY ASSN. OF HEALTH PLANS v. MILLER, KY COMM'R OF INS.
  Questions presented: Are state Any Willing Provider statutes preempted by ERISA, or are they saved from preemption because they are laws which regulate insurance?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1572    COOK COUNTY, IL v. UNITED STATES ex rel. CHANDLER
  Questions presented: Whether local governmental entities are subject to qui tam actions under the False Claims Act. 31 U. S. C. 3729
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 15, 2003

• 01-1368    NV DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES v. HIBBS, WILLIAM, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2612 (a) (1) (C) exceeds Congress's enforcement authority under Section 5 of the Foruteenth Amendment.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1368    NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ET AL., PETITIONERS v. WILLIAM HIBBS ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1491    DEMORE, DIST. DIR., INS v. KIM, HYUNG JOON
  Questions presented: Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

• 01-1269    CUYAHOGA FALLS, OH, ET AL. v. BUCKEYE COMMUNITY HOPE
  Questions presented: Limited to Question 1, 2 & 3: 1. In considering a claim against a municipal corporation for intentional discrimination arising out of a facially neutral and judicially updheld referendum petition, may the court inquire into the motivations of a handfull of the citizens who expressed support for the referendum and impute those motivations to the entire municipal corporation. 2. In light of the constitutional freedom of poltical expression, can a disparate impact claim under the Fair Housing Act be maintained against a municipal corporation for the alleged impact of the filing of a facially neutral and judicially upheld referendum petition. 3. Does the due process clause of the constitution require a muncipal corporation to issue building permits when the underlying conditions for the issuance of building permits have not been met and the municipal corporation's witholding of the permits is required by the judgments of state courts of competent jurisdiction?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1269    CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS, OHIO, et al. v. BUCKEYE COMMUNITY HOPE FOUNDATION et al.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1862    WOODFORD, WARDEN v. GARCEAU, ROBERT F.
  Questions presented: 1. In Lindln v. Murphy, 521 U.S.320 (1997), this Court Held that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) (28 U.S.C. 2241, et seq.) did not apply to cases which commenced prior to the AEDPA's April 24, 1996, effective date. The circuits are split as to when a capital case commences for purposes of triggering the AEDPA. With one exception, all the circuits to consider the issue have found the AEDPA applies if the actual petition was filed on or after the AEDPA's effective date. However, in the Ninth Circuit, the AEDPA does not apply to a federal petition filed on or after April 24, 1996, if motions for appointment of counsel and stay of execution were filed before that date. Calderon v. United States District Court (kelly), 163 F.3d 530 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). What is the correct trigger event for the application of the AEDPA in capital cases?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1862    JEANNE WOODFORD, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. ROBERT FREDERICK GARCEAU.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

• 01-188    PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH v. WALSH
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the federal Medicaid statue, 42 U. S. C. 1396 et seq., allows a state to use authority under that statute to compel drug manufacturers to subsidize price discounts on prescription drugs for non-Medicaid populations? 2. Whether a state may circumvent the Commerce Clause prohibition against regulating or taxing wholly out of state transactions by requiring an out-of-state manufacturer, which sells it products to wholesalers outside the state, to pay the state each time one of its products is subsequently sold by a retailer within the state?
  Docket information  · 
• 01-188    PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA v. WALSH, ACTING COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 01-593    DOLE FOOD COMPANY, ET AL. v. PATRICKSON, GERARDO D.
  Questions presented: Whether a corporation in which a foreign sovereign controls a majority of the shares indirectly through ownership of the corporation’s ultimate parent may qualify as a foriegn state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunitities Act
  Docket information  · 
• 01-594    DEAD SEA BROMINE CO., LTD. v. PATRICKSON, GERARDO D.
  Questions presented: Whether the Act’s definition of agency or instrumentality requires direct ownership by the foreign state, or whether an entity that is majority owned by the foreign state through one or more tiered subsidiaries is an entity a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state within the meaning of 28 USC 1603(b)(2).
  Docket information  · 

Monday, February 24, 2003

• 02-215    PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS v. BOOK, JEFFREY, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether a district court must compel arbitration of a plaintiff's RICO claims under a valid arbitration agreement even if that agreement does not allow an arbitrator to award punitive damages, leaving to the arbitrator in the first instance the decision of what remedies are available to the RICO plaintiff in arbitration.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-42    CA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD v. HYATT, GILBERT, ET AL.
  Questions presented: A long-time resident of California sued that State in a Nevada state court, alleging that California committed the torts of invasion of privacy, abuse of process, and fraud in the course of a personal income tax investigation concerning the timing of the individual's change of residence the timing of the individual's change of residence from California to Nevada. California Government Code section 860.2 reads: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for an injury caused by….(a) Instituting any judicial or administrative proceeding of a tax. In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979) this Court ruled that , in a tort action against Nevada arising out of a traffic accident occurring in California, California need not give full faith and credit to Nevada's statutory limitation on liability for injuries caused by Nevada state employees. However, the Court also noted that its ruling was fact-based: California's exercise of jurisdiction in this case poses no substantial threat to our constitutional system of cooperative federalism. Suits involving traffic accidents occurring outside of Nevada could hardly interfere with Nevada's capacity to fulfill its own sovereign responsibilities. 440 U.S. at 424 n.24 The question presented is: Did the Nevada Supreme Court impermissibly interfere with California's capacity to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, in derogation of article IV, section 1, by refusing to give full faith and credit to California Government Code section 860.2, in a suit brought against California for the torts of invasion of privacy, outrage, abuse of process, and fraud allege to have occurred in the course of California's administrative efforts to determine a former resident's liability for California personal income tax?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, February 25, 2003

• 01-1435    CLACKAMAS GASTROENTEROLOGY v. WELLS, DEBORAH
  Questions presented: Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. is a medical clinic formed as a professional corporation but which operates and has legal attributes of a partnership. The question presented is whether a federal court should apply an economic realities test to determine if the Clinic's physician-shareholders are counted as employees for the purpose of determining if the Clinic is a covered entity subject to the ADA and other federal antidiscrimination states. In this case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the physician-shareholders are employees. The court below rejected the holdings of the Seventh, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits which used an economic realities test. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the Second Circuit which rejected that test.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1559    MASSARO, JOSEPH v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether a federal criminal defendant, whose new appellate counsel fails to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, is procedurally barred from asserting that constitutional claim in a habeas corpus proceeding brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

• 02-271    DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, ET AL. v. STEPHENSON, DANIEL, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether absent class members are precluded from relitigating the issue of adequacy of representation through a collateral attack on a class settlement, after class members had a full opportunity to opt out, object, and appeal, and after both the trial court and the court of appeals, in the course of approving the settlement, expressly determined that the call representatives adequately represented the entire class. 2. Whether, if collateral attack is permissible, the adequacy of representation is issue is properly determined as of the time of the original litigation or in light of events and changes in the law occurring years after the settlement has becomes final and all of the settlement proceeds have been disbursed.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-69    ROELL, JOSEPH C., ET AL. v. WITHROW, JON MICHAEL
  Questions presented: When a district court, upon the plaintiff's written consent, refers a case to a magistrate judge for trial, see 28 U.S.C. 636©, and all parties, the magistrate judge, and the jury proceed in a manner consistent with that referral, must a court of appeals sua sponte vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction because defendants did not expressly consent, or can defendants cure that alleged defect by confirming, in a post-judgment filing with the district court, their consent to trial before the magistrate judge?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 3, 2003

• 01-1806    ILLINOIS ex rel. MADIGAN v. TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES
  Questions presented: Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
  Docket information  · 
• 01-1806    ILLINOIS EX REL. LISA MADIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER v. TELEMARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-5664    SELL, CHARLES T. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-5664    CHARLES THOMAS SELL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 4, 2003

• 02-196    NATL. PARK HOSP. ASSN. v. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Contract Disputed Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601-613, applies to contracts between the National Park Service and private parties for the development, operation, and maintenance of concessions, such as restaurants, lodges, and gift shops, in the national parks.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-196    NATIONAL PARK HOSPITALITY ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER v. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-322    DEPT. OF TREASURY, ETC. v. CHICAGO, IL
  Questions presented: This case involves the application of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, to two computer databases maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). Those databases document (a) the tracing of firearms believed to be involved in crimes (the Trace Database), and (b) information provided by licensed dealers regarding multiple sales of handguns (the Multiple Sales Database). The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether individual names and addresses in the Trace Database and the Multiple Sales Database are exempt from compelled disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C), which encompasses records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes when the production of such records could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 2. Whether various categories of information contained in the Trace Database are protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(A), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A), which encompasses law enforcement records when the production of such records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 5, 2003

• 02-258    JINKS, SUSAN v. RICHLAND COUNTY, SC
  Questions presented: The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute includes a provision, 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), that tolls the period of limitations for supplemental claims while they are pending in federal court and for 30 days after they are dismissed. The question presented is whether the tolling provision invades state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-361    UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. AM. LIBRARY ASSN., ET AL.
  Questions presented: The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 24, 2003

• 01-10873    NGUYEN, KHANH PHUONG v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 02-5034
  Docket information  · 
• 02-311    WIGGINS, KEVIN v. SMITH, Warden, et al.
  Questions presented: Does defense counsel in capital case violate the requirements of Stricland v. Washington by failing to investigate available mitigation evidence that could well have convinced a jury to impose a life sentence, as this Court concluded in Williams v. Taylor and as most Courts of Appeals have concluded, or is defense counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel's decision not to investigate such evidence virtually unchallengeable so long as counsel knows rudimentary facts about the defendant's background, as the Fourth Circuit held in this case.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-311    KEVIN WIGGINS, PETITIONER v. SEWALL SMITH, WARDEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-5034    PHAN, TUYET MAI THI v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Was the Ninth Circuit's judgment vitiated by the participation of a non-Art. III judge?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

• 02-403    FEC v. BEAUMONT, CHRISTINE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-479    MEDICAL BD. OF CA v. HASON, MICHAEL J.
  Questions presented: Does the Eleventh Amendment bar suit under Tile II of the ADA against the California Medical Board for denial of a medical license based on the applicant's mental illness?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

• 02-102    LAWRENCE, JOHN G., ET AL. v. TEXAS
  Questions presented: 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-94    OVERTON, DIR., MI DOC v. BAZZETTA, MICHELLE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 31, 2003

• 01-1757    STOGNER, MARIO R. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented: 1. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the statute of limitations requirement, which historically comprised an element of the crimes charged, so as to charge Petitioner retroactively, violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? 2. Did the California Legislature's abolition of the Statute of limitations arbitrarily retract a liberty interest the state had conferred on Petitioner?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-281    INYO COUNTY, ET AL. v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity enable Indians tribes, their gambling casinos and other commercial businesses to prohibit the searching of their property by law enforcement officers for criminal evidence pertaining to the commission of off-reservation State crimes, when the search is pursuant to a search warrant issued upon probable cause. 2. Whether such a search by State law enforcement officers constitutes a violation of the tribe's civil rights that is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983. 3. Whether, if such a search is actionable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the State law enforcement officers who conducted the search pursuant to the warrant are nonetheless entitled to the defense of qualified immunity.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-281    INYO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PAIUTE-SHOSHONE INDIANS OF THE BISHOP COMMUNITY OF THE BISHOP COLONY ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

• 02-241    GRUTTER, BARBARA v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C> 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981? 2. Should an appellate court required to apply strict scrutiny to governmental race-based preferences review de novo the district court's findings because the fact issues are constitutional?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-516    GRATZ, JENNIFER, ET AL. v. BOLLINGER, LEE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.2000d), or 42 U.S.C. 1981?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 2, 2003

• 02-337    BREUER, PHILLIP T. v. JIM'S CONCRETE OF BREVARD
  Questions presented: Whether an action commenced in state court under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq., (theFLSA), can be removed by the defendant to a federal district court, even though the FLSA expressly provides that the case can be maintained in state court? Whether the Eleventh Circuit's Interpretation of the word maintained as used in the jurisdictional provisions of the FLSA conflicts with this Court's pronounced definition of the word maintain' to be used when construing federal statutes? When the conflict, disparity and deadlock of opinion between the Eleventh and First Circuits and the Eighth Circuit, and between dozens of district courts around the country, regarding whether FLSA actions commenced in state court are removable to federal court, warrants that this Court, as suggested by the Eleventh Circuit in its opinion below, grant this petition to resolve the question once and for all in order to bring uniformity to the federal courts, and eliminate widespread disparity between litigants in our federal system.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-337    PHILLIP T. BREUER, PETITIONER v. JIM'S CONCRETE OF BREVARD, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-428    DASTAR CORPORATION v. TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM
  Questions presented: 1. Does the Lanham Act protect creative works form uncredited copying, even without a likelihood of consumer confusion? 2. May a court applying the Lanham Act award twice the defendant's profits for purely deterrent purposes?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 21, 2003

• 02-524    PRICE, WARDEN v. VINCENT, DUYONN A.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's conclusion that the trial court did not direct a verdict of acquittal is a factual finding entitled to deference on habeas corpus review. 2. Whether Defendant Vincent was twice placed in jeopardy by the action of the trial court in first granting a motion for directed verdict on the issue of first degree murder, and shortly thereafter withdrawing its grant, where both the initial decision and its recall occurred out of the presence of the jury. 3. Whether this Court should grant certiorari to clarify the jurisprudence where there is a split of opinion within the United States Courts of Appeals and within the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and State Courts on the question of whether double jeopardy principles were violated in factually similar situations.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-524    JANETTE PRICE, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. DUYONN ANDRE VINCENT.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-679    DESERT PALACE, INC. v. COSTA, CATHARINA F.
  Questions presented: 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that direct evidence is not required in Title VII cases to trigger the application of the mixed-motive analysis set out in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins? 2. What are the appropriate standards for lower courts to follow in making a direct evidence determination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 22, 2003

• 01-1018    PONDEROSA DAIRY, ET AL. v. LYONS, SEC., FOOD AND AGRIC.
  Questions presented: Consolidated with 01-950
  Docket information  · 
• 01-950    HILLSIDE DAIRY, ET AL. v. LYONS, SEC., FOOD AND AGRIC.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether section 144 of the 1996 Farm Bill creates an unmistakably clear blanket exemption to the dormant Commerce Clause For California's interstate regulation of the dairy industry, which would be otherwise limited by this Court's holding in baldwin v. G.A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U.S. 511 (1935), and its progeny? 2. Whether it is proper for courts to resort to legislative history or a paraphrase of a statute in order to discern an unmistakably clear Congressional exemption to the negative Commerce Clause?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-634    GREEN TREE FINANCIAL CORP. v. BAZZLE, LYNN W., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.1et seq., prohibits class-action procedures from being superimposed onto an arbitration agreement that does not provide for class action arbitration.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

• 02-575    NIKE, INC., ET AL. vs. KASKY, MARC v. NULL
  Questions presented: 1. When a corporation participates in a public debate writing letters to newspaper editors and to educators and publishing communications addressed to the general public on issues of great political, social, and economic importance- may it be subjected to liability for factual inaccuracies on the theory that its statements are commercial speech because they might affect consumers' opinions about the business as a good corporate citizen and thereby affect their purchasing decisions? 2. Even assuming the California Supreme Court properly characterized such statements as Commercial speech, does the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, permit subjecting speakers to the legal regime approved by that court in the decision below?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-575    NIKE, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MARC KASKY.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-722    AM. INS. ASSN., ET AL. v. LOW, HARRY, ETC.
  Questions presented: California's Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act (HVIRA) requires California insurers to provide extensive information regarding every insurance policy issued in Nazi dominated Europe between 1920 and 1945 by any insurer with which the California insurer now has a legal relationship. The district court enjoined enforcement of the Act on three constitutional grounds: interference with the federal government's power over foreign affairs, due process, and the Foreign Commerce Clause. Over the objections of the U.S. government and affected foreign governments, and in direct conflict with Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit reversed and upheld the HVIRA in all respects. 1. Whether the HVIRA, which the U.S. government has called an actual interference with U.S. foreign policy, and which affected foreign governments have protested as inconsistent with international agreements, violates the foreign affairs doctrine of Zschering v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429 (1968). 2. Whether the HVIRA, which attempts to regulate insurance transactions that occurred overseas between foreign parties more than half a century ago, exceeds California's legislative jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause. 3. Whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. 1011-1015, insulates the HVIRA form review under the Foreign Commerce Clause.
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 28, 2003

• 02-299    ENTERGY LOUISIANA, INC. v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERV. COMM.
  Questions presented: Whether Mississippi Power & light v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354 (1988), and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953 (1986), require a state public utility commission to allow an electric utility member of a multi-state power system to recover, in retail rates, the costs allocated to it by a rate schedule of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), or whether the state commission has jurisdiction to decide that it was imprudent for such a utility to incur the costs allocated to it under a FERC rate schedule, thereby trapping such wholesale costs?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-469    BLACK & DECKER DISAB. PLAN v. NORD, KENNETH L.
  Questions presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that an ERISA disability plan administrator's determination of disability is subject to the treating physician rule and, therefore, the plan administrator is required to accept a treating physician's opinion of disability as controlling unless the plan administrator rebuts that opinion in writing based upon substantial evidence on the record.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-469    THE BLACK & DECKER DISABILITY PLAN, PETITIONER v. KENNETH L. NORD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 29, 2003

• 02-182    GEORGIA v. ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act Requires the Drawing of Safe Majority-Minority Districts with Super majority Minority Populations, Rather than Districts that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 2. Whether Section 5 can be Constitutionally Construed to require the Drawing of Supermajority Minority Legislative Districts in Order to Create Safe Seats, Rather than Seats that Afford Minorities Equal Opportunities at Success? 3. Whether Private Parties Should be Allowed to Intervene in a Section 5 Preclearance Action and Assume the Role and Authority of the Attorney General.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-698    PACE, BONNE L. v. GAINES, JUDGE, AZ SUP. CT.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

• 02-306    BENEFICIAL NATL. BANK, ET AL. v. ANDERSON, MARIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: This Court has long held that section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, creates an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive federal remedy for usury claims by borrowers against national banks, preempting state law under the doctrine of ordinary preemption. Borrowers filed this case against a national bank in state court, claiming violation of state usury law, and the national bank removed the case to federal district court, where a motion to remand was denied. On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered the district court to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and explicitly disagreed with decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit holding that section 30 completely preempts state usury claims against national banks and thus permits removal of cases asserting state usury laws against them. The question presented is:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-371    VIRGINIA v. HICKS, KEVIN L.
  Questions presented: 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

• 02-628    FREW, LINDA, ETC., ET AL. v. HAWKINS, COMM'R, TX H&HS
  Questions presented: This case involves the Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) component of the Medicaid Act. U.S.C. 1396a(a)(43);139d®. Another case pending before this Court also involves EPSDT. Haveman v. Westside Mothers, No.02-277. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari in that case to address questions related to this case, the Petitioner-children ask the Court to suspend this case pending resolution of the other. I. Do State officials waive Eleventh Amendment immunity by urging the district court to adopt a consent decree when the decree is based on federal law and specifically provides for the district court's ongoing supervision of the official's decree compliance? 2. Does the Eleventh Amendment bar a district court from enforcing a consent decree entered into by state officials unless the plaintiffs show that the decree violation is also a violation of a federal right remediable under 1983? 3. Does State officials' failure to provide services required by the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions violate right that Medicaid recipients may enforce pursuant to 42 U.S C.§ 1983? See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43); 1396d®.
  Docket information  · 
• 129ORIG    VIRGINIA v. MARYLAND
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 129ORIG    VIRGINIA v. MARYLAND
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 8, 2003

• 02-658    AK DEPT. OF ENVTL. CONSERV. v. EPA, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in upholding the EPA's assertion of authority to second-guess a permitting decision made by the State of Alaska--which had been delegated permitting authority under the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.--in conflict with decisions of this Court and other federal courts of appeals establishing the division of federal-state jurisdiction under the Act and similar statutory programs.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-749    RAYTHEON CO. v. HERNANDEZ, JOEL
  Questions presented: Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act confers preferential rehire rights on employees lawfully terminated for misconduct, such as illegal drug use.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 14, 2003

• 02-682    VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS v. LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS TRINKO
  Questions presented: 1. Whether allegations of inadequacies in a monopolist's affirmative assistance to its rivals, including resellers—as newly provided by incumbent local telephone companies under the Telecommunications Act of 1996—state a claim for unlawful unilateral predatory conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act 2. Whether antitrust and Communications Act standing extends to indirect purchasers, I.e., the customers of the defendant's customer, asserting injuries wholly derivative of the direct customer's injury, even when invoking only the direct customer's legal rights.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-763    BARNHART, COMM'R, SSA v. THOMAS, PAULINE
  Questions presented: Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act define disability as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(A). The Act further provides that a claimant shall be determined to be under a disability only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial gainful work which exists in the national economy. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). Under the Act, work which exists in the national economy means work which exists in significant numbers either in the region where such individual lives or in several regions in the country. 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(B). The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner of Social Security may determine that a claimant is not disabled within the meaning of the Act because the claimant remains physically and mentally able to do her previous work, without considering whether that particular job exists in significant numbers in the national economy.
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

• 02-473    UNITED STATES v. BANKS, LASHAWN L.
  Questions presented: Whether law enforcement officers executing a warrant to search for illegal drugs violated the Fourth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. 3109, thereby requiring suppression of evidence, when they forcibly entered a small apartment in the middle of the afternoon 15-20 seconds after knocking and announcing their presence.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-6683    CASTRO, HERNAN O. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 3, 2003

• 02-809    MARYLAND v. PRINGLE, JOSEPH J.
  Questions presented: Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-819    KONTRICK, ANDREW J. v. RYAN, ROBERT A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

• 02-1196    SEC v. EDWARDS, CHARLES E.
  Questions presented: Whether the Court of appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground that an investment scheme is excluded from the term investment contract in the definitions of ''securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10), if the promoter promises a fixed rather than variable return or if the investor is contractually entitled to a particular amount or rate of return.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-811    GROH, JEFF v. RAMIREZ, JOSEPH R., ET AL.
  Questions presented: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit properly ruled that a law enforcement officer violated clearly established law, and thus was personally liable in damages and not entitled to qualified immunity, when at the time he acted there was no decision by the Supreme Court or any other court so holding, and the only lower court decisions addressing the issue had found the same conduct did not violate the law?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

• 02-1019    ARIZONA v. GANT, RODNEY J.
  Questions presented: When police arrest the recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle pursuant to New York v. Belton unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of the police before getting out of the vehicle?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1060    ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER, ROBERT S.
  Questions presented: Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 10, 2003

• 02-693    LAMIE, JOHN M. v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
  Questions presented: Does 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(l) authorize a court to award fees to a debtor's attorney?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-9410    CRAWFORD, MICHAEL D. v. WASHINGTON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

• 02-1080    GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS. v. CLINE, DENNIS, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Court of appeals erred in holding, contrary to decisions of the First and Seventh Circuits, that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 621-634, prohibits reverse discrimination, I.e., employer action practices, or policies that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers who are at least 40 years old.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1348    OLYMPIC AIRWAYS v. HUSAIN, RUBINA, ETC., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the accident condition precedent to air carrier liability for a passenger's death under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention is satisfied when a passenger's pre-existing medical condition is aggravated by exposure to a normal condition in the aircraft cabin, even if the carrier's negligence were a link in the chain, of causation? The Ninth Circuit's answer to this question in the affirmative directly conflicts with the Third and Eleventh Circuit decisions in Abramson v. Japan Airlines, Co., Ltd., 739 F.2d 130 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. Denied, 470 U.S. 1059 (1985) and Krys v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 119 F.3d 1515 (11th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1111 (1998), and is contrary to the Court's decision in Air France. Saks, 470 U.S. 392 (1985).
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 1, 2003

• 02-1290    USPS v. FLAMINGO INDUSTRIES, ET AL.
  Questions presented: The federal antitrust laws apply to a person, which is defined to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of * * * the United States. 15 U.S.C.7 (sherman Act), 12 (a) (Clayton Act). The question presented is whether the United States Postal Service is a person amenable to suit under the antitrust laws.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-9065    MUHAMMAD, SHAKUR v. CLOSE, MARK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 2, 2003

• 02-1016    TILL, LEE M., ET UX. v. SCS CREDIT CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1016    Lee M. TILL, et ux., Petitioners v. SCS CREDIT CORPORATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1315    LOCKE, GOV. OF WA, ET AL. v. DAVEY, JOSHUA
  Questions presented: The Washington Constitution provides that no public money shall be appropriated or applied to religious instruction. Following this constitutional command, Washington does not grant college scholarships to otherwise eligible students who are pursuing a degree in theology. Does the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment require the state to fund religious instruction, if it provides college scholarships for secular instruction?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 3, 2003

• 02-1377    DOE, BUCK, ET AL. v. CHAO, SEC. OF LABOR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-954    OFFICE OF INDEP. COUNSEL v. FAVISH, ALLAN J.
  Questions presented: The Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 7(C)
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 8, 2003

• 02-8286    BANKS, DELMA, JR. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented: In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-964    BALDWIN, GEORGE H. v. REESE, MICHAEL
  Questions presented: By statute and this Court's caselaw, a state prisoner must exhaust available state court remedies on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings before a federal court may consider granting habeas corpus relief. This Court had held that exhaustion requires a state prisoner to fairly present his claim to the state's highest court and that fair presentment requires the prisoner to have alerted the state court that the claim is a federal one. Does a state prisoner alert the State's highest court that he is raising a federal claim when -- in that court--he neither cites a specific provision of the federal constitution nor cites at least one authority that has decided the claim on a federal basis?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 9, 2003

• 02-1183    UNITED STATES v. PATANE, SAMUEL F.
  Questions presented: Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1371    MISSOURI v. SEIBERT, PATRICE
  Questions presented: Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

• 02-1580    VIETH, RICHARD, ET AL. v. JUBELIRER, ROBERT C., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-6320    FELLERS, JOHN J. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 12, 2004

• 02-1238    NIXON, ATT'Y GEN. OF MO v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1386    FCC, ET AL. v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1389    UNITED STATES v. GALLETTI
  Questions presented: Whether, in order to enforce the derivative liability of partners for the tax debts of their partnership, the United States must make a separate assessment of the taxes owed by the partnership against each of the partners directly?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1405    SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE v. MO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether 47 U.S.C. 253(a), which provides that "[n]o State ... regulation ... may prohibit ... the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service," preempts a state law prohibiting political subdivisions of the state from offering telecommunications service to the public?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

• 02-1667    TENNESSEE v. LANE, GEORGE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilitites Act of 1990 is a proper exercise of Congress' power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and thus validly abrogates state sovereign immunity?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-458    RAYMOND B. YATES, M.D., ETC. v. HENTON, WILLIAM T.
  Questions presented: Whether the working owner of a business (here, the sole shareholder of a corporate employer) is precluded from being a "participant" under Section 3(7) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1002(7), in an ERISA plan?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 14, 2004

• 02-1343    ENGINE MANUFACTURERS ASSOC. v. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY
  Questions presented: Whether local government regulations prohibiting the purchase of new motor vehicles with specified emission characteristics--which are otherwise approved for sale by state and federal regulators--are preempted by the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-626    SOUTH FL WATER MGMT. v. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the South Florida Water Management District's longstanding practice of pumping accumulated water from a water collection canal to a water conservation area within the Florida Everglades constitutes an addition of a pollutant from a point source for purposes of Section 402 the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, where the water contains a pollutant but the pumping station source itself adds no pollutants to the water being pumped?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 20, 2004

• 02-1593    BEDROC LTD., LLC, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether sand and gravel are “valuable minerals” reserved to the United States in land grants issued under the Pittman Underground Water Act of 1919?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1809    HIBBS, DIR., AZ DEPT. OF REVENUE v. WINN, KATHLEEN M., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

• 02-1541    IOWA v. TOVAR, FELIPE E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-107    UNITED STATES v. LARA, BILLY JO
  Questions presented: Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
  Docket information  · 

Monday, February 23, 2004

• 02-1657    SCARBOROUGH, RANDALL C. v. PRINCIPI, SEC VETERANS AFFAIRS
  Questions presented: Whether a complete application for attorney fees and other expenses under The Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(B), containing all the essential elements, must be filed within thirty days to confer jurisdiction on the court.
  Docket information  · 
• 02-857    HOUSEHOLD CREDIT SERVICES v. PFENNIG, SHARON R.
  Questions presented: Whether the Federal Reserve Board reasonably classified a fee imposed by a credit card lender because a consumer has exceeded the credit limit as one of the "other charges which may be imposed" under the account [15 U.S.C. 1637(a)(5)] rather than as a "finance charge" [15 U.S.C. 1605(a)], within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

• 02-1205    JONES, EDITH, ET AL., ETC. v. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO.
  Questions presented: Does the four-year "catch-all" limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1603    BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL. v. BANKS, GEORGE E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

• 02-1794    UNITED STATES v. FLORES-MONTANO, MANUEL
  Questions presented: Whether, under the 4th Amendment, customs officers at the international border must have reasonable suspicion in order to remove, disassemble, and search a vehicle's gas tank for contraband?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-13    AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. ALTMANN, MARIA V.
  Questions presented: Does the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confer jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over the Republic of Austria and the state-owned Austrian Gallery in a suit alleging wrongful appropriation of six Gustav Klimt paintings from their rightful heirs?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 1, 2004

• 02-1606    TN STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORP. v. HOOD, PAMELA L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1684    YARBOROUGH, WARDEN v. ALVARADO, MICHAEL
  Questions presented: (1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 2, 2004

• 02-1824    DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ v. HALEY, MICHAEL W.
  Questions presented: Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-218    ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN. v. ACLU, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 3, 2004

• 02-1689    GRUPO DATAFLUX v. ATLAS GLOBAL GROUP, ET AL.
  Questions presented: (1) Did the court of appeals err by creating a new exception to the longstanding rule that diversity jurisdiction must be determined based on a party's citizenship and circumstances as they existed at the time suit was filed? (2) Did the court of appeals err by allowing a unilateral change in a party's citizenship during the course of litigation to create diversity jurisdiction that did not exist at the time suit was filed?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-44    SABRI, BASIM O. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 22, 2004

• 02-10038    TENNARD, ROBERT J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-5554    HIIBEL, LARRY D. v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
  Questions presented: Whether it is a violation of the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to require someone to identify himself when stopped by police?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

• 02-1632    BLAKELY, RALPH H. v. WASHINGTON
  Questions presented: Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1845    AETNA HEALTH INC., ETC. v. DAVILA, JUAN
  Questions presented: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-83    CIGNA HEALThCARE OF TEXAS, INC. v. CALAD, RUBY R., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. ("ERISA"), as construed by the Supreme Court in Pilot Life Insurance Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U.S. 41 (1987), and its progeny, completely preempts state-law claims by ERISA plan participants or beneficiaries who assert that a managed care company tortiously "failed to cover" (i.e., pay for) medical care?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 24, 2004

• 02-1609    LITTLETON, CO v. Z.J. GIFTS D-4, LLC, ETC.
  Questions presented: Whether the requirement of prompt judicial review imposed by FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), entails a prompt judicial determination or a prompt commencement of judicial proceedings?
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1624    ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH. DIST. v. NEWDOW, MICHAEL A., ET AL.
  Questions presented: (1) Whether Michael Newdow has standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance? (2) Whether a public school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, which includes the words "under God," violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, as applicable through the 14th Amendment?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 29, 2004

• 03-101    NORTON, SEC. OF INTERIOR, ET AL. v. S. UT WILDERNESS ALLIANCE
  Questions presented: Whether the authority of the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1), to "compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed" extends to the review of the adequacy of an agency's ongoing management of public lands under general statutory standards and its own land use plans?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-6821    NELSON, DAVID L. v. CAMPBELL, COMM’R, AL DOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether a complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 by a death-sentenced state prisoner, who seeks to stay his execution in order to pursue a challenge to the procedures for carrying out the execution, is properly recharacterized as a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

• 03-339    SOSA, JOSE F. v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, H., ET AL.
  Questions presented: (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-485    UNITED STATES v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN, HUMBERTO
  Questions presented: (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350 creates a private cause of action for aliens for torts committed anywhere in violation of the law of nations or treaties of the United States or, instead, is a jurisdiction-granting provision that does not establish private rights of action? (2) Whether, to the extent that the Alien Tort Statute is not merely jurisdictional in nature, the challenged arrest in this case is actionable under the act? (3) Whether federal law enforcement officers, and agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration in particular, have authority to enforce a federal criminal statute that applies to acts perpetrated against a United States official in a foreign country by arresting an indicted criminal suspect on probable cause in a foreign country? (4) Whether an individual arrested in a foreign country may bring an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), 2671 et seq., for false arrest, notwithstanding the FTCA's exclusion of "[a]ny claim arising in a foreign country," 28 U.S.C. 2680(k), because the arrest was planned in the United States?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-6539    JOHNSON, JAY S. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented: Whether to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the objector must show that it is more likely than not that the other party's peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

• 03-5165    THORNTON, MARCUS v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented: Whether New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981), which established a bright-line rule authorizing a search of a car's passenger compartment incident to a contemporaneous lawful arrest of an occupant therein, also authorizes a warrantless search of a car when the arrestee was not in the car when the police initiated contact with him or within reaching distance of the car at the time of the arrest?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-95    PA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS, NANCY D.
  Questions presented: When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 19, 2004

• 02-891    CENTRAL LABORERS' PENSION v. HEINZ, THOMAS E., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether an amendment to a multiemployer pension plan that provides for the suspension of the payment of early retirement benefits during the period that a participant, after retiring, is employed by another firm in the same industry is a prohibited elimination or reduction of such benefits under the "anti-cutback" rule in Section 204(g) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), when applied to employees who retired prior to adoption of the amendment.
  Docket information  · 
• 03-526    SCHRIRO, DIR., AZ DOC v. SUMMERLIN, WARREN W.
  Questions presented: 1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 20, 2004

• 02-572    INTEL CORP. v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-334    RASUL, SHAFIQ, ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-343    AL ODAH, FAWZI K., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether United States courts lack jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

• 03-167    UNITED STATES v. BENITEZ, CARLOS D.
  Questions presented: Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-358    DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL. v. PUBLIC CITIZEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented: Whether a presidential foreign-affairs action that is otherwise exempt from environmental-review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), became subject to those requirements because an executive agency promulgated administrative rules concerning implementation of the President's action?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 26, 2004

• 03-221    PLILER, WARDEN v. FORD, RICHARD H.
  Questions presented: (1) Whether the dismissal of a "mixed" habeas corpus petition is improper unless the district court informs the petitioner about the possibility of a stay of the proceeding pending exhaustion of state remedies and advises the petitioner with respect to the statute of limitations in the event of any refiling? (2) Whether a second, untimely habeas petition may relate back to a first habeas petition, where the first habeas petition was dismissed and the first proceeding is no longer proceeding?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-724    F. HOFFMANN-LaROCHE, ET AL. v. EMPAGRAN S.A., ET AL.
  Questions presented: (1) Whether under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982 (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. § 6a, the Sherman Act applies to claims of foreign plaintiffs whose injuries do not arise from the effects of antitrust violations on United States commerce? (2) Whether such foreign plaintiffs lack antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a)?
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

• 03-475    CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF U.S. v. USDC DC
  Questions presented: (1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 28, 2004

• 03-1027    RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE v. PADILLA, JOSE, ET AL.
  Questions presented: (1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
  Docket information  · 
• 03-6696    HAMDI, YASER E. ET AL. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE
  Questions presented: Did the court of appeals erred in holding that the U.S. has established the legality of the military's detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a presumed American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan during the combat operations in late 2001, and was determined by the military to be an enemy combatant who should be detained in connection with the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan?
  Docket information  · 

Monday, October 4, 2004

• 03-407    KOWALSKI, JUDGE, ETC., ET AL. v. TESMER, JOHN C., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-104    UNITED STATES v. BOOKER, FREDDIE J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-105    UNITED STATES v. FANFAN, DUCAN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 105ORIG    KANSAS v. COLORADO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 105ORIG    KANSAS v. COLORADO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 5, 2004

• 03-377    KOONS BUICK PONTIAC GMC v. NIGH, BRADLEY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-409    KP PERMANENT MAKE-UP, INC. v. LASTING IMPRESSIONS, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 6, 2004

• 02-1028    NORFOLK SOUTHERN RWY. CO. v. JAMES N. KIRBY PTY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 02-1192    COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. v. AVIALL SERVICES, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

• 03-583    LEOCAL, JOSUE v. ASHCROFT, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-674    JAMA, KEYSE G. v. INS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

• 03-633    ROPER, SUPT., POTOSI v. SIMMONS, CHRISTOPHER
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-7434    BENITEZ, DANIEL v. WALLIS, DIST. DIR., INS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-878    CRAWFORD, INT. FIELD OFFICE DIR. v. MARTINEZ, SERGIO S.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 1, 2004

• 03-814    STEWART, WILLARD v. DUTRA CONST. CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-892    CIR v. BANKS, JOHN W.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-907    CIR v. BANAITIS, SIGITAS J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 2, 2004

• 03-636    JOHNSON, GARRISON S. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-931    FLORIDA v. NIXON, JOE E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 3, 2004

• 03-1160    SMITH, AZEL P., ET AL. v. JACKSON, MS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-750    SMALL, GARY S. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 8, 2004

• 03-710    DEVENPECK, GERALD, ET AL. v. ALFORD, JEROME A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-9168    SHEPARD, REGINALD v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 9, 2004

• 02-1472    CHEROKEE NATION OF OK, ET AL. v. LEAVITT, SEC. OF H&HS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-725    PASQUANTINO, DAVID B., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-853    THOMPSON, SEC. OF H&HS v. CHEROKEE NATION OF OK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

• 03-1039    BROWN, ACTING WARDEN v. PAYTON, WILLIAM C.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-923    ILLINOIS v. CABALLES, ROY I.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, November 29, 2004

• 03-1454    GONZALES, ATT\'Y GEN., ET AL. v. RAICH, ANGEL M., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-9560    HOWELL, MARLON L. v. MISSISSIPPI
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

• 02-1672    JACKSON, RODERICK v. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF EDUCATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1293    WHITFIELD, DAVID v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1294    HALL, HAYWOOD E. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 1, 2004

• 03-1407    ROUSEY, RICHARD G., ET UX. v. JACOWAY, JILL R.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-8661    SMITH, MELVIN T. v. MASSACHUSETTS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, December 6, 2004

• 03-287    WILKINSON, DIR., OH DOC, ET AL. v. DOTSON, WILLIAM D., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-9659    MILLER-EL, THOMAS J. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, December 7, 2004

• 03-1034    ESTATE OF KANTER, ET AL. v. CIR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1116    GRANHOLM, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. v. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-1120    MI BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS v. HEALD, ELEANOR, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1274    SWEDENBURG, JUANITA, ET AL. v. KELLY, EDWARD D., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-184    BALLARD, CLAUDE M., ET UX. v. CIR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 8, 2004

• 03-1164    JOHANNS, SEC. OF AGRIC., ET AL. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1165    NEBRASKA CATTLEMEN, INC., ET AL. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1423    MUEHLER, DARIN L., ET AL. v. MENA, IRIS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 10, 2005

• 03-388    BATES, DENNIS, ET AL. v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 128ORIG    ALASKA v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 128ORIG    ALASKA v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

• 03-1395    TENET, DIR., CIA, ET AL. v. DOE, JOHN, ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-855    SHERRILL, NY v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

• 03-9046    RHINES, CHARLES R. v. WEBER, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-932    DURA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. v. BROUDO, MICHAEL, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

• 03-9685    JOHNSON, ROBERT v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-5462    ROMPILLA, RONALD v. BEARD, SEC., PA DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, January 19, 2005

• 03-1601    RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA, ET AL. v. ABRAMS, MARK J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-37    CLINGMAN, SEC., OK ELECTION BD. v. BEAVER, ANDREA L., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

• 04-108    KELO, SUSETTE, ET AL. v. NEW LONDON, CT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-163    LINGLE, GOV. OF HI, ET AL. v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

• 03-1566    ORFF, FRANCIS A., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1696    EXXON MOBIL CORP., ET AL. v. SAUDI BASIC INDUSTRIES CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 28, 2005

• 03-1388    SPECTOR, DOUGLAS, ET AL. v. NORWEGIAN CRUISE LINE LTD.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-9627    PACE, JOHN A. v. DiGUGLIELMO, SUPT., GRATERFORD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 1, 2005

• 04-5293    DECK, CARMAN v. MISSOURI
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-70    EXXON CORPORATION v. ALLAPATTAH SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-79    ORTEGA, MARIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. STAR-KIST FOODS, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

• 03-1500    VAN ORDEN, THOMAS v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 03-1693    McCREARY COUNTY, KY, ET AL. v. ACLU OF KY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 21, 2005

• 03-9877    CUTTER, JON B., ET AL. v. WILKINSON, DIR., OH DOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-278    CASTLE ROCK, CO v. GONZALES, JESSICA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

• 03-1488    TORY, ULYSSES, ET AL. v. COCHRAN, JOHNNIE L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-5286    DODD, MICHAEL D. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 28, 2005

• 04-340    SAN REMO HOTEL, ET AL. v. SAN FRANCISCO, CA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-5928    MEDELLIN, JOSE E. v. DRETKE, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

• 04-277    NAT'L CABLE & TELECOMM. ASSN. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-281    FCC, ET AL. v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-480    MGM STUDIOS INC., ET AL. v. GROKSTER, LTD., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

• 04-495    WILKINSON, DIR., OH DOC, ET AL. v. AUSTIN, CHARLES E., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 18, 2005

• 04-603    GRABLE & SONS METAL PRODUCTS v. DARUE ENGINEERING
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-6964    JOHNSON, JAY S. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

• 04-563    MAYLE, WARDEN v. FELIX, JACOBY L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-637    MITCHELL, WARDEN v. STUMPF, JOHN D.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

• 03-1237    MERCK KGaA v. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-169    GRAHAM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. U. S., ex rel. WILSON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 25, 2005

• 03-10198    HALBERT, ANTONIO D. v. MICHIGAN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-6432    GONZALEZ, AURELIO O. v. CROSBY, SEC., FL DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

• 03-1230    AM. TRUCKING ASSNS., ET AL. v. MI PUB. SERV. COMM'N, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 03-1234    MID-CON FREIGHT SYSTEMS, ET AL. v. MI PUBLIC SERVICE COMM'N
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-514    BELL, WARDEN v. THOMPSON, GREGORY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

• 04-368    ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 3, 2005

• 03-1238    IBP, INC. v. ALVAREZ, GABRIEL, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-631    WAGNON, SECRETARY, KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI NATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-66    TUM, ABDELA, ET AL. v. BARBER FOODS, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 5, 2005

• 04-623    GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. v. OREGON, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-698    SCHAFFER, BRIAN, ET AL. v. WEAST, JERRY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

• 04-712    LINCOLN PROPERTY CO., ET AL. v. ROCHE, CHRISTOPHER, ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-980    BROWN, WARDEN v. SANDERS, RONALD L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

• 04-473    GARCETTI, GIL, ET AL. v. CEBALLOS, RICHARD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-759    UNITED STATES v. OLSON, JOSEPH, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 31, 2005

• 04-885    CENTRAL VIRGINIA COMM. COLLEGE v. KATZ, BERNARD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-905    VOLVO TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC. v. REEDER-SIMCO GMC, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 1, 2005

• 04-1084    GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA ETC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-373    MARYLAND v. BLAKE, LEEANDER J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 2, 2005

• 04-597    UNITHERM FOOD SYS., INC. v. SWIFT-ECKRICH, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-881    LOCKHART, JAMES v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 7, 2005

• 04-848    DOLAN, BARBARA v. USPS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 8, 2005

• 04-1067    GEORGIA v. RANDOLPH, SCOTT F.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1140    MARTIN, GERALD T., ET UX. v. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 9, 2005

• 04-1203    UNITED STATES v. GEORGIA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1236    GOODMAN, TONY v. GEORGIA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-721    EVANS, ACTING WARDEN v. CHAVIS, REGINALD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 28, 2005

• 04-1186    WACHOVIA BANK, NAT. ASSN. v. SCHMIDT, DANIEL G., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1332    WILL, RICHARD, ET AL. v. HALLOCK, SUSAN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

• 04-1264    BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC. v. CARDEGNA, JOHN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1329    IL TOOL WORKS INC., ET AL. v. INDEPENDENT INK, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

• 04-1144    AYOTTE, ATT'Y GEN. OF NH v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1244    SCHEIDLER, JOSEPH, ET AL. v. NOW, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1352    OPERATION RESCUE v. NOW
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 5, 2005

• 04-1131    WHITMAN, TERRY L. v. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-52    RICE, WARDEN, ET AL. v. COLLINS, STEVEN M.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 6, 2005

• 04-1152    RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE v. FORUM FOR ACADEMIC RIGHTS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-593    DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., ET AL. v. McDONALD, JOHN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 7, 2005

• 04-1170    KANSAS v. MARSH, MICHAEL L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-928    OREGON v. GUZEK, RANDY L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 9, 2006

• 04-1360    HUDSON, BOOKER T. v. MICHIGAN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

• 04-1495    HARTMAN, MICHAEL, ET AL. v. MOORE, WILLIAM G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-805    TEXACO, INC. v. DAGHER, FOUAD N., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-814    SHELL OIL COMPANY v. DAGHER, FOUAD N., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 11, 2006

• 04-8990    HOUSE, PAUL G. v. BELL, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-944    ARBAUGH, JENIFER v. Y & H CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

• 04-1477    JONES, GARY K. v. FLOWERS, LINDA K., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1581    WI RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. v. FED. ELECTION COMM'N
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

• 04-1371    MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, ETC. v. DABIT, SHADI
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1414    UNITED STATES v. GRUBBS, JEFFREY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

• 04-1034    RAPANOS, JOHN A., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1384    CARABELL, JUNE, ET AL. v. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1527    S.D. WARREN CO. v. ME BD. OF ENVTL. PROTECTION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

• 04-1327    HOLMES, BOBBY L. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-9728    SAMSON, DONALD C. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-9728    SAMSON, DONALD C. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 27, 2006

• 04-1324    DAY, PATRICK v. CROSBY, SEC., FL DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1506    AR DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVS., ET AL. v. AHLBORN, HEIDI
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

• 04-1528    RANDALL, NEIL, ET AL. v. SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1530    VT REPUBLICAN STATE COMM. v. SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 04-1544    MARSHALL, VICKIE L. v. MARSHALL, E. PIERCE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1697    SORRELL, WILLIAM H., ET AL. v. RANDALL, NEIL, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 1, 2006

• 04-1618    Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. CHATHAM COUNTY, GA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1704    DAIMLErCHRYSLER CORP., ET AL. v. CUNO, CHARLOTTE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-1724    WILKINS, TAX COMM'R, OH, ET AL. v. CUNO, CHARLOTTE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-204    LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN, ET AL. v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-204    LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN, ET AL. v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-254    TRAVIS COUNTY, TX, ET AL. v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-276    JACKSON, EDDIE, ET AL. v. PERRY, GOV. OF TEXAS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-439    GI FORUM OF TX, ET AL. v. PERRY, GOV. OF TX, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 20, 2006

• 05-5224    DAVIS, ADRIAN M. v. WASHINGTON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-5224    DAVIS, ADRIAN M. v. WASHINGTON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-5705    , Hammon v. v. NULL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

• 04-473    GARCETTI, GIL, ET AL. v. CEBALLOS, RICHARD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-607    LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA v. METABOLITE LABORATORIES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-128    HOWARD DELIVERY SERVICE v. ZURICH AMER. INSURANCE CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

• 04-1376    FERNANDEZ-VARGAS, HUMBERTO v. GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-416    WOODFORD, JEANNE S., ET AL. v. NGO, VIET M.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 27, 2006

• 04-1739    BEARD, SEC., PA DOC v. BANKS, RONALD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 04-433    ANZA, JOSEPH, ET AL. v. IDEAL STEEL SUPPLY CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

• 05-184    HAMDAN, SALIM A. v. RUMSFELD, SEC. OF DEFENSE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-260    SEREBOFF, JOEL, ET UX. v. MID ATLANTIC MEDICAL SERVICES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

• 04-10566    SANCHEZ-LLAMAS, MOISES v. OREGON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-130    eBAY INC., ET AL. v. MERcEXCHANGE, L.L.C.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-51    BUSTILLO, MARIO A. v. JOHNSON, DIR., VA DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 17, 2006

• 05-259    BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. v. WHITE, SHEILA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-83    WASHINGTON v. RECUENCO, ARTURO R.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

• 05-352    UNITED STATES v. GONZALEZ-LOPEZ, CUAUHTEMOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-5992    ZEDNER, JACOB v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 19, 2006

• 05-18    ARLINGTON CENT. SCH. DIST. v. MURPHY, PEARL, ET VIR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-5966    CLARK, ERIC M. v. ARIZONA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 24, 2006

• 05-409    KIRCHER, CARL, ET AL. v. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-502    BRIGHAM CITY, UT v. STUART, CHARLES W., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

• 05-200    EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE ASSURANCE v. McVEIGH, DENISE F.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 05-7053    DIXON, KESHIA C. A. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

• 05-465    MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. WILLIAMS, SHIRLEY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-8794    HILL, CLARENCE E. v. CROSBY, SEC., FL DOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

• 05-493    ORNASKI, WARDEN v. BELMONTES, FERNANDO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-547    LOPEZ, JOSE A. v. GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-7664    TOLEDO-FLORES, REYMUNDO v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

• 05-608    MEdIMMUNE, INC. v. GENENTECH, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-669    BP AM. PROD. CO., ET AL. v. WATSON, REBECCA W., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

• 05-705    GLOBAL CROSSING, INC. v. METROPHONES, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-746    NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. v. SORRELL, TIMOTHY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-998    UNITED STATES v. RESENDIZ-PONCE, JUAN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

• 05-6551    CUNNINGHAM, JOHN v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-785    CAREY, WARDEN v. MUSLADIN, MATHEW
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 30, 2006

• 05-593    OSBORN, PAT v. HALEY, BARRY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-7058    JONES, LORENZO L. v. BOCK, WARDEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-7142    WILLIAMS, TIMOTHY v. OVERTON, WILLIAM S., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

• 05-1256    PHILIP MORRIS USA v. WILLIAMS, MAYOLA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-8820    LAWRENCE, GARY v. FLORIDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 1, 2006

• 05-595    WHORTON, DIR., NV DOC v. BOCKTING, MARVIN H.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-848    ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE, ET AL. v. DUKE ENERGY CORPORATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 6, 2006

• 05-1240    WALLACE, ANDRE v. CHICAGO, IL, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-996    MARRAMA, ROBERT L. v. CITIZENS BANK OF MA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 7, 2006

• 05-9222    BURTON, LONNIE L. v. WADDINGTON, SUPT., STAFFORD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-9264    JAMES, ALPHONSO v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 8, 2006

• 05-1382    GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-380    GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. v. CARHART, LEROY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 27, 2006

• 05-1074    LEDBETTER, LILLY M. v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER, CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1126    BELL ATLANTIC CORP., ET AL. v. TWOMBLY, WILLIAM, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

• 04-1350    KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-381    WEYERHAEUSER CO. v. ROSS-SIMMONS HARDWOOD LUMBER CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

• 05-1120    MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. v. EPA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1342    WATTERS, LINDA A. v. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 4, 2006

• 05-908    PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMM. SCHS. v. SEATTLE SCH. DIST. NO. 1
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-915    MEREDITH, CRYSTAL D. v. JEFFERSON CTY. BD. OF ED.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

• 05-1272    ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1629    GONZALES, ATT'Y GEN. v. DUENAS-ALVAREZ, LUIS A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 8, 2007

• 05-1345    UNITED HAULERS ASSN., INC. v. ONEIDA-HERKIMER SOLID WASTE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-116    MOYLAN, ATT'Y GEN. OF GUAM v. CAMACHO, GOV. OF GUAM
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 9, 2007

• 05-1575    SCHRIRO, DIR., AZ DOC v. LANDRIGAN, JEFFREY T.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-102    SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL v. MALAYSIA INT'L SHIPPING
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

• 05-1508    ZUNI PUB. SCH. DIST. NO. 89 v. DEPT. OF EDUCATION, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1589    DAVENPORT, GARY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1657    WASHINGTON v. WASHINGTON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

• 05-1429    TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO. v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-100    GEICO GEN. INS. CO., ET AL. v. EDO, AJENE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-84    SAFECO INS. CO., ET AL. v. BURR, CHARLES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Thursday, January 18, 2007

• 05-11284    ABDUL-KABIR, JALIL v. QUARTERMAN, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-11287    BREWER, BRENT R. v. QUARTERMAN, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 05-11304    SMITH, LaROYCE L. v. TEXAS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

• 06-5618    CLAIBORNE, MARIO v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-5754    RITA, VICTOR A. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

• 05-1056    MICROSOFT CORP. v. AT&T CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 26, 2007

• 05-1541    EC TERM OF YEARS TRUST v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 05-1631    SCOTT, TIMOTHY v. HARRIS, VICTOR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

• 05-983    WINKELMAN, JACOB, ET AL. v. PARMA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

• 06-157    HEIN, DIR., ET AL. v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 19, 2007

• 06-219    WILKIE v. ROBBINS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-278    MORSE, DEBORAH, ET AL. v. FREDERICK, JOSEPH
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

• 06-5247    FRY, JOHN F. v. PLILER, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

• 06-313    ROPER, SUPT., POTOSI v. WEAVER, WILLIAM
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, March 26, 2007

• 06-480    LEEGIN CREATIVE LEATHER PRODUCTS v. PSKS, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-5306    BOWLES, KEITH v. RUSSELL, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

• 05-1157    CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON LTD. v. BILLING, GLEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-606    ALTADIS USA, INC. v. SEA STAR LINE, LLC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

• 06-484    TELLABS, INC., ET AL. v. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, April 16, 2007

• 05-85    POWEREX CORP. v. RELIANT ENERGY SERVICES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-593    LONG ISLAND CARE AT HOME, ET AL. v. COKE, EVELYN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

• 06-340    NAT. ASSN. OF HOME BUILDERS v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-413    UTTECHT, SUPT., WA v. BROWN, CAL C.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-531    STRUHS, SEC., FL DEPT., ET AL. v. WYNER, T. A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-549    EPA v. DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

• 06-341    BCI COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO. v. EEOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-427    TN SECD'Y SCH. ATHL. ASSN. v. BRENTWOOD ACADEMY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-6407    PANETTI, SCOTT L. v. QUATERMAN, DIR., TX DCJ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 23, 2007

• 06-376    HINCK, JOHN F., ET UX. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-562    UNITED STATES v. ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 06-8120    BRENDLIN, BRUCE E. v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

• 05-1448    BECK, JEFFREY H. v. PACE INTERNATIONAL UNION, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-134    PERMANENT MISSION ETC., ET AL. v. NEW YORK, NY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-618    OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON v. HANSON, BRAD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

• 05-1284    WATSON, LISA, ET AL. v. PHILIP MORRIS CO., INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-969    FEC v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-970    McCAIN, SENATOR, ET AL. v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, October 1, 2007

• 06-637    BD. OF ED. OF THE CITY OF NY v. TOM F.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-713    WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE v. WA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-730    WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. WA REPUBLICAN PARTY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

• 06-6330    KIMBROUGH, DERRICK v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-7949    GALL, BRIAN M. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

• 06-1005    UNITED STATES v. SANTOS, EFRAIN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-766    NY BD. OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. v. TORRES, MARGARITA L., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

• 06-43    STONERIDGE INVESTMENT v. SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-571    WATSON, MICHAEL A. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

• 06-984    MEDELLIN, JOSE E. v. TEXAS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 29, 2007

• 06-1265    KLEIN & CO. FUTURES, INC. v. BOARD OF TRADE OF CITY OF NY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-9130    ALI, ABDUS-SHAHID M. S. v. FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

• 06-6911    LOGAN, JAMES D. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-694    UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS, MICHAEL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

• 06-8273    DANFORTH, STEPHEN v. MINNESOTA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 5, 2007

• 06-1287    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. GA STATE BD. OF EQUALIZATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-666    DEPT. OF REVENUE OF KY, ET AL. v. DAVIS, GEORGE W., ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

• 06-1164    JOHN R. SAND & GRAVEL CO. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1322    FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. v. HOLOWECKI, PAUL, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

• 06-989    HALL STREET ASSOC. v. MATTEL, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 26, 2007

• 06-856    LaRUE, JAMES v. DeWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOC., INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

• 06-1286    KNIGHT, MICHAEL J. v. CIR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 134ORIG    NEW JERSEY v. DELAWARE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

• 06-457    ROWE, ATT'Y GEN. OF ME v. NH MOTOR TRANSP. ASSN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 3, 2007

• 06-1221    SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO. v. MENDELSOHN, ELLEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

• 06-10119    SNYDER, ALLEN v. LOUISIANA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-179    RIEGEL, CHARLES R., ET UX. v. MEDTRONIC, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

• 06-1195    BOUMEDIENE, LAKHDAR, ET AL. v. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1196    AL ODAH, KHALED A. F., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 7, 2008

• 06-1181    DADA, SAMSON T. v. KEISLER, ACTING ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-5439    BAZE, RALPH, ET AL. v. REES, COMM'R, KY DOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

• 06-11612    GONZALEZ, HOMERO v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1509    BOULWARE, MICHAEL H. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 9, 2008

• 06-1037    KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYS., ET AL. v. EEOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-21    CRAWFORD, WILLIAM, ET AL. v. MARION CTY. ELECTION BD., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 07-25    IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL. v. ROKITA, IN SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Monday, January 14, 2008

• 06-1082    VIRGINIA v. MOORE, DAVID L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1463    PRESTON, ARNOLD M. v. FERRER, ALEX E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

• 06-11543    BEGAY, LARRY v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1646    UNITED STATES v. RODRIQUEZ, GINO G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

• 06-1413    MEADWESTVACO CORP. v. IL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-937    QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

• 06-1321    GOMEZ-PEREZ, MYRNA v. POTTER, POSTMASTER GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1457    MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP v. PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. 1, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1462    CALPINE ENERGY SVCS., ET AL. v. PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. 1, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

• 06-1431    CBOCS WEST, INC. v. HUMPHRIES, HEDRICK G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 25, 2008

• 06-1456    CUELLAR, HUMBERTO F. R. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-1498    WARNER-LAMBERT CO., ET AL. v. KENT, KIMBERLY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

• 07-214    ALLISON ENGINE CO., INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. SANDE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

• 07-219    EXXON SHIPPING COMPANY, ET AL. v. BAKER, GRANT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 17, 2008

• 06-1204    PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. PIMENTEL, MARIANO J., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-440    ROTHGERY, WALTER A. v. GILLESPIE COUNTY, TX
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

• 07-290    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL. v. HELLER, DICK A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

• 06-1717    RICHLIN SECURITY SERVICE CO. v. CHERTOFF, SEC. OF HOMELAND SEC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-939    CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. BROWN, ATT'Y GEN. OF CA, ET AL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 24, 2008

• 06-11429    BURGESS, KEITH L. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-308    UNITED STATES v. CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-77    RILEY, GOV. OF AL v. KENNEDY, YVONNE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

• 06-1666    MUNAF, MOHAMMAD, ET AL. v. GEREN, SEC. OF ARMY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-394    GEREN, SEC. OF ARMY, ET AL. v. OMAR, SANDRA K., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-455    UNITED STATES v. RESSAM, AHMED
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

• 07-208    INDIANA v. EDWARDS, AHMAD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-312    FL DEPT. OF REVENUE v. PICCADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 14, 2008

• 07-210    BRIDGE, JOHN, ET AL. v. PHOENIX BOND & INDEMNITY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-411    PLAINS COMMERCE BANK v. LONG FAMILY LAND & CATTLE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

• 06-7517    IRIZARRY, RICHARD v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-330    GREENLAW, MICHAEL v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

• 07-343    KENNEDY, PATRICK v. LOUISIANA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-371    TAYLOR, BRENT v. STURGELL, ACT. ADM'R, FAA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 21, 2008

• 07-474    ENGQUIST, ANUP v. OR DEPT. OF AGRIC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-552    SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL. v. APCC SERVICES, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

• 07-320    DAVIS, JACK v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 07-6053    GILES, DWAYNE v. CALIFORNIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

• 06-1505    MEACHAM, CLIFFORD B., ET AL. v. KNOLLS ATOMIC POWER LAB., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 06-923    METLIFE, ET AL. v. GLENN, WANDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 6, 2008

• 07-562    ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. GOOD, STEPHANIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-610    LOCKE, DANIEL B., ET AL. v. KARASS, EDWARD A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-773    VADEN, BETTY E. v. DISCOVER BANK, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

• 07-513    HERRING, BENNIE D. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-542    ARIZONA v. GANT, RODNEY J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-636    KENNEDY, KARI E., ET AL. v. PLAN ADM. FOR DUPONT SAVINGS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

• 06-1595    CRAWFORD, VICKY S. v. NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON CTY., TN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1239    WINTER, SEC. OF NAVY, ET AL. v. NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-463    SUMMERS, PRISCILLA, ET AL. v. EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

• 07-689    BARTLETT, GARY, ET AL. v. STRICKLAND, DWIGHT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-751    PEARSON, CORDELL, ET AL. v. CALLAHAN, AFTON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

• 07-544    CHRONES, WARDEN v. PULIDO, MICHAEL R.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-772    WADDINGTON, SUPT., WA v. SARAUSAD, CESAR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-901    OREGON v. ICE, THOMAS E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 3, 2008

• 06-1249    WYETH v. LEVINE, DIANA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-526    CARCIERI, GOV. OF RI, ET AL. v. KEMPTHORNE, SEC. OF INTERIOR
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-869    YSURSA, ID SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. v. POCATELLO ED. ASSN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

• 07-1059    UNITED STATES v. EURODIF S.A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1078    USEC INC., ET AL. v. EURODIF S.A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 07-582    FCC, ET AL. v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 07-6984    JIMENEZ, CARLOS v. QUARTERMAN, DIR., TX DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

• 07-499    NEGUSIE, DANIEL G. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-854    VAN DE KAMP, JOHN, ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 10, 2008

• 06-11206    CHAMBERS, DEONDERY v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-591    MELENDEZ-DIAZ, LUIS E. v. MASSACHUSETTS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-608    UNITED STATES v. HAYES, RANDY E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

• 07-1223    BELL, EDWARD N. v. KELLY, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-665    PLEASANT GROVE CITY, UT, ET AL. v. SUMMUM
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 1, 2008

• 07-581    14 PENN PLAZA LLC, ET AL. v. PYETT, STEVEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 105ORIG    KANSAS v. COLORADO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 105ORIG    KANSAS v. COLORADO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

• 07-1125    FITZGERALD, LISA, ET VIR v. BARNSTABLE SCHOOL COMM., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-588    ENTERGY CORPORATION v. EPA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-589    PSEG FOSSIL LLC, ET AL. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 07-597    UTILITY WATER ACT GROUP v. RIVERKEEPER, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

• 07-10374    HAYWOOD, KEITH v. DROWN, CURTIS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1216    PHILIP MORRIS USA INC. v. WILLIAMS, MAYOLA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 8, 2008

• 07-1209    PEAKE, SEC. OF VA v. SANDERS, WOODROW F.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-512    PACIFIC BELL TELEPH., ET AL. v. LINKLINE COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

• 07-1114    CONE, GARY B. v. BELL, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1122    ARIZONA v. JOHNSON, LEMON M.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

• 07-1015    ASHCROFT, FORMER ATT'Y GEN. v. IQBAL, JAVAID, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-543    AT&T CORP. v. HULTEEN, NOREEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 12, 2009

• 07-615    MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF IRAN v. ELAHI, DARIUSH
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-8521    HARBISON, EDWARD J. v. BELL, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-984    COEUR ALASKA, INC. v. SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-990    ALASKA v. SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

• 07-1315    KNOWLES, WARDEN v. MIRZAYANCE, ALEXANDRE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1529    MONTEJO, JESSE J. v. LOUISIANA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-88    VERMONT v. BRILLON, MICHAEL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

• 07-1309    BOYLE, EDMUND v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-9712    PUCKETT, JAMES B. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

• 07-10441    CORLEY, JOHNNIE v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1356    KANSAS v. VENTRIS, DONNIE R.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-681    NKEN, JEAN M. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 23, 2009

• 07-1410    UNITED STATES v. NAVAJO NATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-9995    RIVERA, MICHAEL v. ILLINOIS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

• 07-1437    CARLSBAD TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. HIF BIO, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1601    BURLINGTON NO. & SANTA FE R. CO. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 07-1607    SHELL OIL CO. v. UNITED STATES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1341    UNITED STATES v. MARCUS, GLENN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

• 07-1372    HAWAII, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-108    FLORES-FIGUEROA, IGNACIO C. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Sunday, March 1, 2009

• 08-1470    BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. THOMPKINS, VAN C.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 2, 2009

• 08-214    ATLANTIC SOUNDING CO., INC. v. TOWNSEND, EDGAR L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-6    DISTRICT ATTY'S OFFICE, ET AL. v. OSBORNE, WILLIAM G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

• 08-146    ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP, ET AL. v. CARLISLE, WAYNE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-22    CAPERTON, HUGH M., ET AL. v. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

• 08-192    ABUELHAWA, SALMAN K. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-5274    DEAN, CHRISTOPHER M. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 23, 2009

• 08-67    YEAGER, F. SCOTT v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

• 08-205    CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

• 08-267    UNITED STATES v. DENEDO, JACOB
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 30, 2009

• 08-295    TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO., ET AL. v. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-307    COMMON LAW SETTLEMENT COUNSEL v. BAILEY, PEARLIE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

• 08-441    GROSS, JACK v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

• 08-310    POLAR TANKERS, INC. v. VALDEZ, AK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 20, 2009

• 07-1090    IRAQ v. BEATY, JORDAN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-289    HORNE, THOMAS C. v. FLORES, MIRIAM, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-294    SPEAKER OF THE AZ HOUSE, ET AL. v. FLORES, MIRIAM, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-539    IRAQ, ET AL. v. SIMON, ROBERT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

• 08-479    SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. REDDING, APRIL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-660    U. S., EX REL. EISENSTEIN v. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

• 07-1428    RICCI, FRANK, ET AL. v. DeSTEFANO, JOHN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-328    RICCI, FRANK, ET AL. v. DeSTEFANO, JOHN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 27, 2009

• 08-495    NIJHAWAN, MANOJ v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-598    BOBBY, WARDEN v. BIES, MICHAEL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

• 08-305    FOREST GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. T. A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-453    CUOMO, ATT'Y GEN. OF NY v. CLEARING HOUSE ASSOC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

• 08-322    NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUN. UTIL. v. MUKASEY, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 5, 2009

• 08-678    MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. CARPENTER, NORMAN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-680    MARYLAND v. SHATZER, MICHAEL B.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 138ORIG    SOUTH CAROLINA v. NORTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

• 08-6925    JOHNSON, CURTIS D. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-728    BLOATE, TAYLOR J. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-769    UNITED STATES v. STEVENS, ROBERT J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

• 08-103    REED ELSEVIER, INC., ET AL. v. MUCHNICK, IRVIN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-472    SALAZAR, SEC. OF INTERIOR v. BUONO, FRANK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-604    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

• 08-651    PADILLA, JOSE v. KENTUCKY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-724    SMITH, WARDEN v. SPISAK, FRANK G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

• 08-351    ALVAREZ, ANITA v. SMITH, CHERMANE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-970    PERDUE, GOV. OF GA, ET AL. v. KENNY A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 2, 2009

• 08-1008    SHADY GROVE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC. v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-586    JONES, JERRY N., ET AL. v. HARRIS ASSOCIATES L.P.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-992    BEARD, SEC., PA DOC, ET AL. v. KINDLER, JOSEPH J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

• 08-538    SCHWAB, WILLIAM G. v. REILLY, NADEJDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-674    NRG POWER MARKETING, ET AL. v. MAINE PUB. UTILITIES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-969    HEMI GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, NY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

• 08-1065    POTTAWATTAMIE COUNTY, IA, ET AL. v. McGHEE, CURTIS W., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-9156    WOOD, HOLLY v. ALLEN, COMM'R, AL DOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 9, 2009

• 08-7412    GRAHAM, TERRANCE J. v. FLORIDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-7621    SULLIVAN, JOE H. v. FLORIDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-964    BILSKI, BERNARD L., ET AL. v. DOLL, JOHN J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

• 08-1107    HERTZ CORPORATION v. FRIEND, MELINDA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-911    KUCANA, AGRON v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 30, 2009

• 08-304    GRAHAM COUNTY SOIL, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. WILSON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-905    MERCK & CO., INC., ET AL. v. REYNOLDS, RICHARD, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

• 08-1119    MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1134    UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. ESPINOSA, FRANCISCO J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1225    UNITED STATES v. MILAVETZ, GALLOP & MILAVETZ
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

• 08-1151    STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT v. FL DEPT. OF ENVTL. PROTECTION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 7, 2009

• 08-1175    FLORIDA v. POWELL, KEVIN D.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-861    FREE ENTERPRISE FUND, ET AL. v. PUBLIC CO. OVERSIGHT BD., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

• 08-1196    WEYHRAUCH, BRUCE v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-876    BLACK, CONRAD M., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

• 08-1198    STOLT-NIELSEN S.A., ET AL. v. ANIMALFEEDS INTERNATIONAL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 11, 2010

• 07-11191    BRISCOE, MARK A., ET AL. v. VIRGINIA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 132ORIG    ALABAMA, ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 132ORIG    ALABAMA, ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

• 08-1224    UNITED STATES v. COMSTOCK, GRAYDON E., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-645    ABBOTT, TIMOTHY M. v. ABBOTT, JACQUELYN V.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

• 08-1200    JERMAN, KAREN L. v. CARLISLE, McNELLIE, RINI, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-661    AMERICAN NEEDLE, INC. v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

• 08-1214    GRANITE ROCK COMPANY v. INT'L BHD. OF TEAMSTERS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-240    MAC'S SHELL SERVICE, ET AL. v. SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-372    SHELL OIL PRODUCTS CO., ET AL. v. MAC'S SHELL SERVICE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

• 08-1402    BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. SMITH, DIAPOLIS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-810    CONKRIGHT, SALLY L., ET AL. v. FROMMERT, PAUL J., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 22, 2010

• 08-1322    ASTRUE, COMM'R, SOCIAL SEC. v. RATLIFF, CATHERINE G.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-974    LEWIS, ARTHUR L., ET AL. v. CHICAGO, IL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

• 08-1498    HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL. v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1569    UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN, MARTIN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-89    HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT, ET AL. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

• 08-1301    CARR, THOMAS v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 1, 2010

• 08-1394    SKILLING, JEFFREY K. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-5327    HOLLAND, ALBERT v. FLORIDA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

• 08-1521    McDONALD, OTIS, ET AL. v. CHICAGO, IL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1529    MIGLIACCIO, EUGENE, ET AL. v. CASTANEDA, YANIRA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

• 08-1555    SAMANTAR, MOHAMED A. v. YOUSUF, BASHE A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-38    HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORP. v. POLLITT, JULI A., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 22, 2010

• 08-998    HAMILTON, JAN v. LANNING, STEPHANIE K.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-223    LEVIN, RICHARD A. v. COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

• 08-1234    KIYEMBA, JAMAL, ET AL. v. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1457    NEW PROCESS STEEL, L.P. v. NLRB
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

• 08-1553    KAWASAKI KISEN KAISHA, ET AL. v. REGAL-BELOIT CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1554    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. REGAL-BELOIT CORP., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-158    MAGWOOD, BILLY J. v. CULLIVER, WARDEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 29, 2010

• 08-1191    MORRISON, ROBERT, ET AL. v. NAT. AUSTRALIA BANK LTD., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-338    RENICO, WARDEN v. LETT, REGINALD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

• 09-5201    BARBER, MICHAEL G., ET AL. v. THOMAS, WARDEN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-6338    DILLON, PERCY v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

• 08-6261    ROBERTSON, JOHN v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. WATSON
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-60    CARACHURI-ROSENDO, JOSE A. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 19, 2010

• 08-1332    ONTARIO, CA, ET AL. v. QUON, JEFF, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1371    CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER v. MARTINEZ, LEO P., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

• 09-367    DOLAN, BRIAN R. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

• 09-337    KRUPSKI, WANDA v. COSTA CROCIERE, S.P.A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 26, 2010

• 09-448    HARDT, BRIDGET v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INS.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-497    RENT-A-CENTER, WEST, INC. v. JACKSON, ANTONIO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

• 09-475    MONSANTO CO., ET AL. v. GEERTSON SEED FARMS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

• 09-559    DOE #1, JOHN, ET AL. v. REED, WA SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 4, 2010

• 09-479    ABBOTT, KEVIN v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-7073    GOULD, CARLOS R. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-907    RANSOM, JASON M. v. MBNA, AMERICA BANK, N.A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

• 09-150    MICHIGAN v. BRYANT, RICHARD P.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-350    LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA v. HUMPHRIES, CRAIG A., ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-530    NASA, ET AL. v. NELSON, ROBERT M., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

• 09-571    CONNICK, HARRY F., ET AL. v. THOMPSON, JOHN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-751    SNYDER, ALBERT v. PHELPS, FRED W., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

• 09-152    BRUESEWITZ, RUSSELL, ET AL. v. WYETH, INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-587    HARRINGTON, WARDEN v. RICHTER, JOSHUA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-658    BELLEQUE, SUPT., OR v. MOORE, RANDY J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

• 09-834    KASTEN, KEVIN v. SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTIC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-9000    SKINNER, HENRY W. v. SWITZER, LYNN
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 1, 2010

• 09-737    ORTIZ, MICHELLE v. JORDAN, PAULA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-846    UNITED STATES v. TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

• 08-1438    SOSSAMON, HARVEY L. v. TEXAS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 08-1448    SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA v. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-400    STAUB, VINCENT E. v. PROCTOR HOSPITAL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

• 08-1314    WILLIAMSON, DELBERT, ET AL. v. MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-987    AZ CHRISTIAN SCH. TUITION ORG. v. WINN, KATHLEEN M., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-991    GARRIOTT, GALE v. WINN, KATHLEEN M., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 8, 2010

• 08-1423    COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION v. OMEGA, S.A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-837    MAYO FOUNDATION, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

• 09-1088    CULLEN, ACTING WARDEN v. PINHOLSTER, SCOTT L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-893    AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION, VINCENT, ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

• 09-520    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. AL DEPT. OF REVENUE, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-5801    FLORES-VILLAR, RUBEN v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, November 29, 2010

• 09-868    WALL, DIR., RI DOC v. KHOLI, KHALIL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-996    WALKER, WARDEN, ET AL. v. MARTIN, CHARLES W.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

• 09-1233    SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA v. PLATA, MARCIANO, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-804    CIGNA CORP., ET AL. v. AMARA, JANICE C., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

• 09-1163    MILNER, GLEN S. v. DEPT. OF NAVY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-529    VOPA v. REINHARD, JAMES S., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, December 6, 2010

• 09-1036    HENDERSON, DAVID L. v. SHINSEKI, SEC. OF VA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-6822    PEPPER, JASON v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

• 09-291    THOMPSON, ERIC L. v. NORTH AMERICAN STAINLESS, LP
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-525    JANUS CAPITAL GROUP, ET AL. v. FIRST DERIVATIVE TRADERS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

• 09-115    CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ET AL. v. CRISS CANDELARIA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-329    CHASE BANK USA, N.A. v. McCOY, JAMES A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, January 10, 2011

• 09-1156    MATRIXX INITIATIVES, ET AL. v. SIRACUSANO, JAMES, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 137ORIG    MONTANA v. WYOMING, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

• 09-1343    J. McINTYRE MACHINERY, LTD. v. NICASTRO, ROBERT, ET UX.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-76    GOODYEAR LUXEMBOURG TIRES v. BROWN, EDGAR D., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

• 09-11311    SYKES, MARCUS v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1272    KENTUCKY v. KING, HOLLIS D.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

• 09-1205    SMITH, KEITH, ET AL. v. BAYER CORP.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1298    GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1302    BOEING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-179    STERN, HOWARD K. v. MARSHALL, ELAINE T.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

• 09-1273    ASTRA USA, INC., ET AL. v. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1279    FCC, ET AL. v. AT&T INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

• 09-1227    BOND, CAROL A. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1498    UNITED STATES v. TINKLENBERG, JASON L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

• 09-10245    FREEMAN, WILLIAM v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-6    GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, ET AL. v. SEB S.A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, February 28, 2011

• 09-1159    BD. OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1533    DePIERRE, FRANTZ v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

• 09-1454    CAMRETA, BOB v. GREENE, SARAH
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1478    ALFORD, JAMES v. GREENE, SARAH, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-188    SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP. v. UNITED STATES, EX REL. KIRK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

• 09-10876    BULLCOMING, DONALD v. NEW MEXICO
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-98    ASHCROFT, JOHN D. v. AL-KIDD, ABDULLAH
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 21, 2011

• 09-11328    DAVIS, WILLIE G. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-11556    TOLENTINO, JOSE v. NEW YORK
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

• 09-1476    DURYEA, PA, ET AL. v. GUARNIERI, CHARLES J.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-114    FOX, RICKY D. v. VICE, BILLY R., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

• 09-11121    J. D. B. v. NORTH CAROLINA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-10    TURNER, MICHAEL D. v. PRICE, REBECCA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, March 28, 2011

• 10-235    CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. McBRIDE, ROBERT
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-238    AZ FREE ENTERPRISE, ET AL. v. BENNETT, KEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-239    McCOMISH, JOHN, ET AL. v. BENNETT, KEN, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

• 10-277    WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES, BETTY, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-5443    FOWLER, CHARLES A. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

• 09-1039    ACTAVIS ELIZABETH, LLC v. MENSING, GLADYS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-1501    ACTAVIS, INC. v. DEMAHY, JULIE
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 09-993    PLIVA, INC., ET AL. v. MENSING, GLADYS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-313    TALK AMERICA, INC. v. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-329    ISIOGU, ORJIAKOR, ET AL. v. MI BELL TELEPHONE CO.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 18, 2011

• 10-290    MICROSOFT CORP. v. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 10-5400    TAPIA, ALEJANDRA v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

• 10-174    AM. ELECTRIC POWER CO., ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

• 10-382    UNITED STATES v. JICARILLA APACHE NATION
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, April 25, 2011

• 09-1403    ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC. v. HALLIBURTON CO., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-5258    McNEILL, CLIFTON T. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

• 10-779    SORRELL, ATT'Y GEN. OF VT v. IMS HEALTH INC., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

• 10-568    NEVADA COMMISSION ON ETHICS v. CARRIGAN, MICHAEL A.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 3, 2011

• 09-1158    MAXWELL-JOLLY, DAVID v. CA PHARMACISTS ASSN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 09-958    MAXWELL-JOLLY, DAVID v. INDEP. LIVING CENTER OF S. CA
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-283    MAXWELL-JOLLY, DAVID v. SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  · 
• 10-6549    REYNOLDS, BILLY J. v. UNITED STATES
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

• 10-1001    MARTINEZ, LUIS M. v. RYAN, DIR., AZ DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-63    MAPLES, CORY R. v. MAPLES, INTERIM COMM'R, AL DOC
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-680    HOWES, WARDEN v. FIELDS, RANDALL L.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

• 10-545    GOLAN, LAWRENCE, ET AL. v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-553    HOSANNA-TABOR CHURCH v. EEOC, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

• 10-507    PACIFIC OPERATORS OFFSHORE v. VALLADOLID, LUISA L., ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-637    GREENE, ERIC v. FISHER, SUPT., SMITHFIELD
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-948    COMPUCREDIT CORP., ET AL. v. GREENWOOD, WANDA, ET AL.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

• 10-694    JUDULANG, JOEL v. HOLDER, ATT'Y GEN.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-945    FLORENCE, ALBERT W. v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin

Monday, October 31, 2011

• 10-209    LAFLER, BLAINE v. COOPER, ANTHONY
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin
• 10-444    MISSOURI v. FRYE, GALIN E.
  Questions presented:
  Docket information  ·  LII Bulletin