The New York Times The New York Times Washington   
Search:  

Powered by: FindLaw
FindLaw: Supreme Court Center: Docket: October 2006 Cases

Supreme Court Docket



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

October 2006

[Download October 2, 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download October 30, 2006 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2005 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Tuesday, October 3


Lopez v. Gonzales, Attorney General
No. 05-547

Reymundo Toledo-Flores v. United States
No. 05-7664

Subject:

    Immigration Law, Criminal Law, Controlled Substances Act
Questions:
  1. Whether an immigrant who is convicted in state court of a drug crime that is a felony under the state's law but that would only be a misdemeanor under federal law has committed an "aggravated felony" for purposes of the immigration laws.

  2. Has the Fifth Circuit erred in holding - in opposition to the Second, Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits - that a state felony conviction for simple possession of a controlled substance is a "drug trafficking crime" under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) (2) and hence an "aggravated felony," under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a) (43) (B), even though the same crime is a misdemeanor under federal law?
Decisions and Reports:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Lopez:
Robert A. Long Jr.
Covington & Burling
Washington, DC
For Petitioner Toledo-Flores
Timothy Crooks
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Houston, TX
For Respondent Gonzales, Attorney General:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

Robert L. Ayers, Jr., Acting Warden v. Fernando Belmontes
No. 05-493

Subject:

    Capital Cases, Criminal Law, Habeas Corpus, Jury Instruction
Questions:
  1. Does Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 (1990), confirm the constitutional sufficiency of California's "unadorned factor (k)" instruction where a defendant presents mitigating evidence of his background and character which relates to, or has a bearing on, his future prospects as a life prisoner?

  2. Does the Ninth Circuit's holding, that California's "unadorned factor (k)" instruction is constitutionally inadequate to inform jurors they may consider "forward-looking" mitigation evidence constitute a "new rule" under Teague v. Lane, 489 , U.S. 288 (1989)?

Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner:
Mark A. Johnson
Deputy Attorney General
Sacramento, CA
For Respondent Belmontes:
Eric S. Multhaup
Mill Valley, CA

Christopher H. Wing
Sacramento, CA


Wednesday, October 4


MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
No. 05-608

Subject:

    Justiciability, Patents, Intellectual Property, Declaratory Judgment Act
Question:
    Does Article III's grant of jurisdiction of "all Cases . . . arising under . . . the Laws of the United States," implemented in the "actual controversy" requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), require a patent licensee to refuse to pay royalties and commit material breach of the license agreement before suing to declare the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner MedImmune, Inc.:
Harvey Kurzweil
Dewey Ballantine, LLP
New York, NY
For Respondent Genentech, Inc.:
Daniel M. Wall
Latham & Watkins LLP
San Francisco, CA

BP America Production Company v. Rebecca W. Watson, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior, et al.
No. 05-669

Subject:

    Statute of Limitations, Administrative Orders, Mineral Leasing Act, Leases and Agreements, Royalties, Contracts, Oil & Gas Law
Question:
    Whether - contrary to the decision below but consistent with decisions of the Tenth and Federal Circuits - the limitations period in 28 U.S.C. 2415(a) applies to federal agency orders requiring the payment of money claimed under a lease or other agreement.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner BP America Production Co.:
Steven R. Hunsicker
Baker Botts L.L.P.
Washington, DC
For Respondent Rebecca W. Watson:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC


Tuesday, October 10


United States v. Juan Resendiz-Ponce
No. 05-998

Subject:

    Harmless Error, Deportation, Criminal Law, Immigration Law
Question:
    Whether the omission of an element of a criminal offense from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner United States:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondent Resendiz-Ponce:
Atmore Baggot
Apache Junction, AZ


Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc.
No. 05-705

Subject:

    Payphones, Long distance carriers, Telecommunications Act of 1934
Question:
    Whether 47 U.S.C. 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 creates a private right of action for a provider of payphone services to sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the FCC's regulations concerning compensation for coinless payphone calls.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Global Crossing
Telecommunications, Inc.:

Jeffrey L. Fisher
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Seattle, WA
For Respondent Metrophones
Telecommunications, Inc.:

David James Russell
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
Seattle, WA


Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. Timothy Sorrell
No. 05-746

Subject:

    Federal Employers Liability Act, Employee Contributory Negligence, Causation Standard, Railroad Negligence
Question:
    Whether the court below erred in determining-in conflict with this Court and multiple courts of appeals-that the causation standard for employee contributory negligence under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA") differs from the causation standard for railroad negligence.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Norfolk Southern
Railway Company:

Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Timothy Sorrell:
Roger C. Denton
Schlichter Bogard & Denton
St. Louis, MO


Wednesday, October 11


John Cunningham v. California
No. 05-6551

Subject:

    California's Determinate Sentencing Law, Sentencing, 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment
Question:
    Whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law, by permitting sentencing judges to impose enhanced sentences based on their determination of facts not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant, violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Cunningham, et al.:
Peter Gold
San Francisco, CA
For Respondent California:
Jeffrey M.K. Laurence
Office of the Attorney General
Sacramento, CA

Thomas L. Carey, Warden v. Mathew Musladin
No. 05-785

Subject:

    Due Process, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Criminal Law, Habeas Corpus
Question:
    In the absence of controlling Supreme Court law, did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit exceed its authority under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1) by overturning respondent's state conviction of murder on the ground that the Courtroom spectators included three family members of the victim who wore buttons depicting the deceased?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Thomas L. Carey, Warden:
Gregory A. Ott
State of California Attorney General Office
San Francisco, CA
For Respondent Mathew Musladin:
David Wayne Fermino
Federal Public Defender Northern Dist. of CA
San Francisco, CA


Monday, October 30


Pat Osborn v. Barry Haley, et al.
No. 05-593

Subject:

    Federal jurisdiction, Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, Westfall Act, Government Law
Questions:
  1. Whether the Westfall Act authorizes the Attorney General to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident solely by denying that such incident occurred at all.

  2. Whether the Westfall Act forbids a district court to remand an action to state court upon concluding that the Attorney General's purported certification was not authorized by the Act.

  3. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1447(d).
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Osborn:
Eric Grant
Sacramento, CA
For Respondents:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC

Lorenzo L. Jones v. Barbara Bock, et al.
No. 05-7058

Timothy Williams v. William S. Overton, et al.
No. 05-7142

Subject:

    Civil Rights, Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Exhaustion, Administrative Remedies, Prison conditions, grievance procedures
Questions:
  1. Whether satisfaction of the PLRA' s exhaustion requirement is a prerequisite to a prisoner's federal civil rights suit such that the prisoner must allege in his complaint how he exhausted his administrative remedies (or attach proof of exhaustion to the complaint), or instead, whether non-exhaustion is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proven by the defense.

  2. Whether the PLRA requires a prisoner to name a particular defendant in his or her administrative grievance in order to exhaust his or her administrative remedies as to that defendant and to preserve his or her right to sue them.

  3. Whether the PLRA prescribes a "total exhaustion" rule that requires a federal district court to dismiss a prisoner's federal civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies whenever there is a single unexhausted claim, despite the presence of other exhausted claims.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Lorenzo L. Jones & Timothy Williams:
Jean-Claude Andre
Ivey, Smith & Ramirez
Los Angeles, CA
For Respondent Barbara Bock, et al.:
Thomas L. Casey
State of Michigan, Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI


Tuesday, October 31


Philip Morris USA v. Mayola Williams
No. 05-1256

Subject:

    Product Liability, Remedies, Punitive Damages, Due Process, Personal Injury & Tort, Wrongful Death, Tobacco
Questions:
  1. Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's, conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to a crime can "override" the constitutional requirement that punitive damages be reasonably related to the plaintiffs harm.

  2. Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Philip Morris USA:
Andrew L. Frey
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP
New York, NY
For Respondent Mayola Williams:
Robert S. Peck
Center for Const. Litigation
Washington, DC

Gary Lawrence v. Florida
No. 05-8820

Subject:

    Capital Cases, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Statute of Limitations, Equitable Tolling, Extraordinary Circumstances
Question:
  1. There is a split in the circuits about whether the one-year period of limitations is tolled for "[t]he time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment of claim is pending . . . . " Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) 28 U.S.C. Section 2244(d) (2). Where a defendant facing death has pending a United States Supreme Court certiorari petition to review the validity of the state's denial of his claims for state postconviction relief, does the defendant have an application pending which tolls the 2244 (d)(2) statute of limitations?

  2. Alternatively, does the confusion around the statute of limitations --as evidenced by the split in the circuits -constitute an "extraordinary circumstance," entitling the diligent defendant to equitable tolling during the time when his claim is being considered by the United States Supreme Court on certiorari?

  3. And in the second alternative, do the special circumstance where counsel advising the defendant as to the statute of limitations was registry counsel - a species of state actor - under the monitoring supervision of Florida Courts, with a statutory duty to file appropriate motions in a timely manner, constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" beyond the defendant's control such that the doctrine of equitable tolling should operate to save his petition?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Gary Lawrence:
Mary Catherine Bonner
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
For Respondent Florida:
Cassandra K. Dolgin
Assistant Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL

 


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

 

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

Copyright © 2014 FindLaw