Source: http://m.scotusblog.com/2011/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-06-02-11/?wpmp_switcher=mobile
Timestamp: 2016-07-30 05:28:11
Document Index: 480310883

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 20701', '§2253', '§2244', '§ 1291', '§ 1623', '§ 2254']

Petitions to watch | Conference of 06.02.11 : SCOTUSblog
Posted Wed, June 1st, 2011 6:54 pm
Posted Wed, June 1st, 2011 6:54 pm by Christa Culver
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices' June 2 Conference. These are petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues.
John Crane, Inc. v. AtwellDocket: 10-272Issue(s): Whether the Boiler Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701-03 (2006), impliedly preempts the field of locomotive equipment and thereby bars respondents state-law claim?Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (Superior Court of Pennsylvania)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's replySupplemental brief for petitionerSecond supplemental brief for petitioner (forthcoming)CVSG Information:Invited: November 1, 2010Filed: May 6, 2011 (Grant)
General Electric Co. v. JacksonDocket: 10-871Issue(s): (1) Whether a unilateral administrative order's (UAO's) imposition of either significant response costs or significant decreases in a potentially responsible party's stock price and credit rating constitute a deprivation of property under the Due Process Clause; and (2) whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act's UAO scheme impermissibly coerces compliance in violation of the Due Process Clause by conditioning any judicial review of a UAO upon the threat of treble damages and fines that accumulate at EPA's sole discretion.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United StatesAmicus brief of Finance Professors and Scholars (forthcoming)Petitioner's reply
Gonzalez v. Thaler (Granted )Docket: 10-895Issue(s): (1) Was there jurisdiction to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U. S. C. §2253(c) and to adjudicate petitioner's appeal? (2) Was the application for a writ of habeas corpus out of time under 28 U. S. C. §2244(d)(1) due to the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review? Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (5th Circuit)
Griffith v. RednourDocket: 10-980Issue(s): (1) Whether, for purposes of the statute of limitations of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a state supreme court can render a state petition for leave to appeal "timely" by granting a retroactive fourteen-day extension of time pursuant to established state court rules and decisions; and (2) AEDPAâ€™s one-year statute of limitations should be enforced against a state prisoner who presents a credible claim of actual innocence.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (7th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition Amicus brief of the Roderick MacArthur Justice Center, et al.Amicus brief of Academics and Former State and Federal JudgesAmicus brief of the Innocence NetworkPetitioner's replyPetitioner's supplemental brief
Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc.Docket: 10-1199Issue(s): (1) Whether an unqualified money judgment for a sum certain is final for purposes of appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1291 and 1295; and (2) whether, when a postjudgment motion tolls the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A), the time to appeal runs from the date of an order granting the motion or from the date of a judgmentâ€™s alteration or amendment upon such motion.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (Fed. Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's reply
The following petitions have been re-listed for the conference of June 2. If any other paid petitions are re-distributed for this conference, we will add them below as soon as their re-distribution is noted on the docket.
Burris v. JudgeDocket: 10-367Issue(s): (1) Whether the Seventeenth Amendment's express delegation of power to "direct" an election to fill a vacant seat in the United States Senate to state legislatures precludes a federal judge from selecting the candidates that shall appear on the ballot; (2) whether the Seventeenth Amendment allows a state to forgo a special election and instead permit a temporarily appointed United States Senator to serve for the remainder of the vacated term where that term expires in less than two years after the first federal election following the vacancy; and (3) whether categorically excluding any would-be candidate from the ballot in a newly announced special election to fill a vacant seat in the United States Senate unless that individual had already registered and been certified by the Illinois State Board of Elections as a candidate for the regular November election is consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (7th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in opposition of Governor Pat QuinnBrief in opposition of Gerald Anthony JudgePetitioner's supplemental brief
Messerschmidt v. Millender (Granted )Docket: 10-704Issue(s): (1) Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her? (2) Whether United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), should be reconsidered or clarified?Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Circuit) Quinn v. JudgeDocket: 10-821Issue(s): Whether, contrary to the longstanding practice and the laws of many States, the Seventeenth Amendment requires a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat "every time that a vacancy happens in the state's senate delegation" - as the decision below holds - even when the vacated term will expire in the normal course following the next, biennial Congressional election.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (7th Circuit)Petition for certiorari Brief in oppositionAmicus brief of Louisiana et al.Petitioner's reply
Martinez v. Ryan (Granted )Docket: 10-1001Issue(s): Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claimCertiorari stage documents:Opinion Below (9th Circuit)Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner's reply
Martinez v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaDocket: 10-1029Issue(s): (1) Whether a state statute that provides resident tuition rates at public postsecondary institutions to illegal aliens, based on their attendance at high schools in the state, is preempted by 8 U.S.C.Â§ 1623; (2) whether a court must undertake conflict preemption analysis after concluding that an express preemption provision does not apply in a case involving both types of preemption claims.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (California Supreme Court)Petition for certiorariBrief of the Regents of the University of California et al. in oppositionBrief of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges et al. in oppositionPetitioners' replyAmicus brief of the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, Inc.Amicus brief of U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith et al.
Eisai Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USADocket: 10-1070Issue(s): When a case becomes moot as the result of a third partyâ€™s independent action after the court of appeals issues a judgment but while a petition for rehearing is still pending, should the court of appeals vacate the judgment upon the request of the aggrieved party?Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (Fed. Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioners' reply Cavazos v. SmithDocket: 10-1115Issue(s): Did the Ninth Circuit on second remand from this Court exceed its authority under the deferential standard for habeas corpus review in 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2254(d) by granting relief for insufficient evidence based on its acceptance of the cause-of-death testimony of defense experts over the contrary opinion testimony of prosecution experts?Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (9th Circuit)Petition for certiorari (unavailable)Brief in opposition (unavailable)Petitioner's reply
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline	Recommended Citation: Christa Culver, Petitions to watch | Conference of 06.02.11, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 1, 2011, 6:54 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-06-02-11/	Share: Featured Posts	School board again urges Court to step in now in transgender bathroom case	– Amy Howe	Virginia student urges Court to deny stay in transgender bathroom case	– Amy Howe	Texas voter ID challenge headed to district court, rather than Supreme Court, for now?	– Amy Howe	Merits Case Pages and Archives	This Term's Merits Cases