Source: http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/december.html
Timestamp: 2017-12-15 06:29:04
Document Index: 29876156

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 407', '§ 1964', '§ 1951', '§ 1983', '§ 991', '§ 991', '§ 1973']

December 2002 [Download December 2002 Argument Calendar PDF ]
[Click here for 2001 Docket ] Monday, December 2
United States Supreme Court, Order: August 26, 2002
Joint Appendix I (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Joint Appendix II (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioner - Reply (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
David Meyer, et al. v. Emma Mary Holley, et al.
Fair Housing Act of 1968, Racial Discrimination, Vicarious Liability
Did the Ninth Circuit properly conclude that criteria under the Fair Housing Act permit owners and officers of corporations to be 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 discriminatory acts that occurred?
United States Supreme Court, Decided: January 22, 2003
Washington State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs., et al. v. Guardianship of Keffeler, et al.
Social Security, Anti-Alienation, States
Whether a state agency, acting as the representative payee for a foster child who is receiving Social Security benefits, violates the Social Security Act's anti-alienation provision, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), when it uses those benefit payments to pay for the child's current needs and maintenance.
United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 25, 2003
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Hobbs Act, Abortion Clinics, Protests, Injunctive Relief
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 Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
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 from 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) (emphasis added)) 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.
U.S. District Court - Northern District of Illinois, Order Denying Motion for Relief from Judgment, Filed: March 28, 2001
United States Supreme Court, Decided: February 26, 2003
Petitioner Scheidler, et al. (No. 01-1118) (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner Scheidler, et al. - Reply (No. 01-1118) (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner Operation Rescue (No. 01-1119) (Petition) [PDF]
Petitioner Scheidler, et al. (No. 01-1118) (Merits) [PDF]
Petitioner Operation Rescue (01-1119) (Merits) [PDF]
Life Legal Defense Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
States of Alabama, Nebraska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
NARAL Foundation®/NARAL®, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Ben Chavez v. Oliverio Martinez
Civil Rights, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fifth Amendment, Qualified Immunity
Was the Ninth Circuit correct in characterizing the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and ignoring its holding favorable to a civil rights defendant?
Does a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occur at the time of the purported coercive interview or only when and if the state introduces the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding?
Was the Ninth Circuit correct in holding that the conduct of the investigating officer in this case was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity?
California Cities (Merits) [PDF]
City of Escondido, California (Merits) [PDF]
National Police Accountability Project of the National Lawyers Guild (Merits) [PDF]
Corporate Tax, Domestic International Sales Corporations, Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §§ 991-997)
Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1979-1984 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "domestic international sales corporations" (26 U.S.C. §§ 991-997 (1976 & Supp. III 1979)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the then applicable Treasury regulations.
Whether, in computing their combined taxable income from the export sales of aircraft during the period from 1985-1987 under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code pertaining to "foreign sales corporations" (26 U.S.C §§. 921-927 (1988)), petitioners must take into account expenses incurred for aircraft research and development in the manner required by the then-applicable Treasury regulations.
Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
Respondent United States - Opposition (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. - Reply (Petition) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
Cross-Petitioner United States (No. 01-1382) (Conditional Cross-Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. (Merits) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
Respondent and Cross-Petitioner United States (Merits) (Nos. 01-1209 and 01-1382) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Petitioners Boeing Co., et al. - Reply (Merits) (No. 01-1209) [PDF]
Tax Executives Institute (Merits) PDF]
Allen D. Brown, et al. v. Legal Foundation of Washington, et al.
United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 26, 2003
Petitioners Washington Legal Foundation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
Respondents Legal Foundation of Washington, et al. - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Respondent Justices of the Washington Supreme Court - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Petitioner Washington Legal Foundation (Merits) [PDF]
Respondents Legal Foundation of Washington, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Respondent Justices of the Washington Supreme Court (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Petitioners Washington Legal Foundation, et al. - Reply (Merits) [PDF]
Citizens for the Preservation of Constitutional Rights, et al. (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT]
American Bar Association (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Conference of Chief Justices (Merits) [PDF]
National League of Cities, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
City and County of San Francisco (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
Forty-nine State Bar Associations, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
States of California, Massachusetts, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Justices of the Texas Supreme Court, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Branch, et al. v. Smith, et al.
Smith, et al. v. Branch, et al.
Congressional redistricting, reapportionment
Does Article I, Sec. 4 of the U.S. 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?
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 [sic] that in force and effect on November 1, 1964," as stated in 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 U.S. Attorney General or the federal district court for the District of Columbia under Section 5?
Under Section 5, when a redistricting plan adopted by state authorities has "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 60-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?
Whether, as its plain language declares, U.S.C. 2a(5) [sic] 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."
Three-Judge Panel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. Miss. 2002)), Filed: February 2, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Probable Jurisdiction Noted: June 10, 2002
United States Supreme Court, Decided: March 31, 2003
Docket Sheet (Case No. 01-1437) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Docket Sheet (Case No. 01-1596) From the U.S. Supreme Court.
Appellees Smith, et al. (Merits) (No. 01-1437) [PDF]
Amicus - Appellees Smith, et al. (No. 01-1437)
Amicus - Cross-Appellees Branch, et al. (No. 01-1596)
Borden Ranch Partnership, et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al.
United States Supreme Court, Affirmed: December 16, 2002
Respondents - Opposition (Petition) [PDF] [TEXT] [RTF]
Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [TEXT]
California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Petition) [PDF]
American Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
American Forest & Paper Association (Merits) [PDF]
California Farm Bureau Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Home Builders (Merits) [PDF]
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [RTF]
Save Our Shoreline (Merits) [PDF]
States of Alabama, Alaska, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Association of State Wetlands Managers (Merits) [PDF]
National Wildlife Federation, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
States of New Jersey, Hawaii, and West Virginia (Merits) [PDF]
Dr. Joy Zedler, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Virginia v. Barry E. Black, et al.
First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Cross Burning, Hate Crimes
Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even thought the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
Respondents (Petition) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
Respondents (Merits) [PDF] [RTF] [WORD]
State of California (Merits) [PDF]
States of New Jersey, Arizona, et al. (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
The Council of Conservative Citizens (Merits) [PDF] [WP]
Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
State Farm Mutual Auto. v. Curtis Campbell, et ux.
Punitive Damages, Constitutional Limitations
Whether the United States Constitution allows a state court to impose and inflate punitive damages based on the defendant's purely out-of-state conduct or its aggregate worldwide "wealth" and profits.
Whether the United States Constitution requires that juries be instructed on the federal constitutional limitations on their ability to assess punitive damages.
Joint Appendix Vol. 1 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 2 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 3 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 4 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 5 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 6 (Merits) [PDF]
Joint Appendix Vol. 7 (Merits) [PDF]
Abbott Laboratories, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Alliance of American Insurers, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
American Council of Life Insurers (Merits) [PDF]
American Tort Reform Association (Merits) [PDF]
Common Good (Merits) [PDF]
Defense Research Institute (Merits) [PDF]
DeKalb Genetics Corporation (Merits) [PDF]
Ford Motor Company (Merits) [PDF]
Health Insurance Association of America, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
International Mass Retail Association (Merits) [PDF]
National Association of Manufacturers (Merits) [PDF] [TEXT]
National Conference Insurance Legislators (Merits) [PDF]
A. Mitchell Polinsky, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Truck Insurance Exchange, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
Association of Trial Lawyers of America (Merits) [PDF]
California Consumer Health Care Council, Inc. (Merits) [PDF]
Certain Leading Social Scientists and Legal Scholars (Merits) [PDF]
Keith N. Hylton (Merits) [PDF]
States of Minnesota, Delaware, et al. (Merits) [PDF]
United Policyholders (Merits) [PDF]