USATODAY.com

FindLaw: Supreme Court Center: Docket: October 2005 Cases

Supreme Court Docket



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

October 2005

[Download October 3-12, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Download October 31, 2005 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2004 Docket]
Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Monday, October 3


IBP, Inc. v. Gabriel Alvarez, et al.
No. 03-1238

Abdela Tum, et al. v. Barber Foods, Inc., dba Barber Foods
No. 04-66

Subject:

Questions:
  1. Whether walking that occurs between compensable clothes-changing time and the time employees arrive at or depart from their actual work stations constitutes non-compensable "walking . . . to and from the actual place of performance of the principal activity" within the meaning of Section 4(a).

  2. Do employees have a right to compensation for time they must spend waiting at required safety equipment distribution stations?
Decisions and Reports:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner IBP, Inc.:
Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC
For Petitioners Tum, et al.
Thomas C. Goldstein
Goldstein & Howe, P.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondents Alvarez, et al.:
William Rutzick
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender
Seattle, WA
For Respondent Barber Foods:
Michael A. Duddy
Kelly, Remmel & Zimmerman
Portland, ME

Joan Wagnon, Secretary, Kansas Department of Revenue v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation
No. 04-631

Subject:

    Native American Sovereignty, Immunities, Income, Fuel Taxes
Questions:
  1. When a State taxes the receipt of fuel by non-tribal distributors, manufacturers and importers, and such receipt occurs off-reservation, does the interest-balancing test in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), apply because the fuel is later sold by a tribe to final consumers?

  2. Should the Court abandon the White Mountain Apache interest-balancing test in favor of a preemption analysis based on the principle that Indian immunities are dependent upon congressional intent?

  3. Did the court of appeals err in applying the White Mountain Apache interest balancing test by, inter alia, placing dispositive weight on the fact that a tribally-owned gas station derives income from largely non-tribal patrons of the tribe's nearby casino?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Wagnon:
John Michael Hale
Special Assistant Attorney General
Kansas Department of Revenue
Topeka, KS
For Respondent Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation:
Ian Heath Gershengorn
Jenner & Block LLP
Washington, DC


Wednesday, October 5


Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General, et al. v. Oregon, et al.
No. 04-623

Subject:

    Controlled Substances Act, Physician-Assisted Suicide, Oregon Death with Dignity Act
Question:
    Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:
    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Gonzales, et al.:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Oregon, et al.:
Mary H. Williams
State Solicitor General
Salem, OR

Brian Schaffer, a Minor, By His Parents and Next Friends, Jocelyn and Martin Schaffer, et al. v. Jerry Weast, Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, et al.
No. 04-698

Subject:

Question:
    Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when parents of a disabled child and a local school district reach an impasse over the child's individualized education program, either side has a right to bring the dispute to an administrative hearing officer for resolution. At the hearing, which side has the burden of proof -the parents or the school district?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Schaffer, et al.:
William H. Hurd
Troutman Sanders LLP
Richmond, VA
For Respondents Weast, et al.:
Maree F. Sneed
Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.
Washington, DC


Tuesday, October 11


Jill L. Brown, Warden v. Ronald L. Sanders
No. 04-980

Subject:

    California Death Penalty Statute, "Weighing Statutes," Special Circumstances, Harmless Error
Questions:
  1. Is the California death penalty statute a "weighing statute" for which the state court is required to determine that the presence of an invalid special circumstance was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to the jury's determination of penalty?

  2. If an affirmative answer to the first question was dictated by precedent, was it necessary for the state supreme court to specifically use the phrases "harmless error" or "reasonable doubt" in determining that there was no "reasonable possibility" that the invalid special circumstance affected the jury's sentence selection?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Brown:
Jane N. Kirkland
Deputy Attorney General
Sacramento, CA
For Respondent Sanders:
Nina Rivkind
Berkeley, CA


Lincoln Property Company, et al. v. Christopher Roche, et ux.
No. 04-712

Subject:

    Diversity Jurisdiction, Real Parties in Interest, Limited Partnership, Citizenship
Questions:
  1. Whether an entity not named or joined as a defendant in the lawsuit can nonetheless be deemed a "real party in interest" to destroy complete diversity of citizenship in a case removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b).

  2. Whether a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction purposes is determined not by the citizenship of its partners but by whether its business activities establish a "very close nexus" with the state.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Lincoln Property Co., et al.:
David C. Frederick
Kellogg Huber Hansen
    Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
Washington, DC
For Respondents Christopher Roche, et ux:
Gregory Beckwith
Phillips, Beckwith, Hall & Chase
Fairfax, VA


Wednesday, October 12


Gil Garcetti, et al. v. Richard Ceballos
No. 04-473

Subject:

    Public Employees, Job-Related Speech, First Amendment
Questions:
  1. Should a public employee's purely job-related speech, expressed strictly pursuant to the duties of employment, be cloaked with First Amendment protection simply because it touches on a matter of public concern, or should First Amendment protection also require the speech to be engaged in "as a citizen", in accordance with this Court's holdings in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983)?

  2. Is immediate review by this Court necessary to address the growing inter-circuit conflict on the question of whether a public employee's purely job-related speech is constitutionally protected, especially where the lack of uniformity dramatically impacts the ability of all public employers to effectively manage their respective agencies?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Garcetti, et al.:
Cindy S. Lee
Franscell Strickland Roberts & Lawrence
Glendale, CA
For Respondent Ceballos:
Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer
Public Citizen Litigation Group
Washington, DC

United States v. Joseph Olson, et al.
No. 04-759

Subject:

    Federal Tort Claims Act, Safety Inspections, Liability
Question:
    Whether the liability of the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act with respect to safety inspections is the same as that of private individuals under like circumstances or, as the Ninth Circuit held, the same as that of state and municipal entities under like circumstances.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner United States:
Paul D. Clement
U.S. Solicitor General
Washington, DC
For Respondents Olson, et al.:
Thomas G. Cotter
Haralson, Miller, Pitt,
    Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C.
Tucson, AZ


Monday, October 31


Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.
No. 04-905

Subject:

Questions:
  1. Whether an unaccepted offer that does not lead to a purchase — so that there is not "discriminat[ion] * * * between different purchasers" as the statutory language contemplates - may be the basis for liability under the Act.

  2. Whether the Act permits recovery of damages by a disfavored purchaser that does lose sales or profits to a competitor that does not purchase from the defendant, but does not lose sales or profits to any purchaser that "receives the benefit of" the defendant's price discrimination.
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner Volvo Trucks N. Am.:
Roy T. Englert Jr.
Robbins, Russell, Englert,
    Orseck & Untereiner LLP
Washington, DC
For Respondent Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc.:
Carter G. Phillips
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP
Washington, DC

Central Virginia Community College, et al. v. Bernard Katz, Liquidating Supervisor for Wallace's Bookstores, Inc.
No. 04-885

Subject:

Question:
    May Congress use the Article I Bankruptcy Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 4, to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity?
Decisions:

Resources:

Briefs:

    Parties
Counsel of Record

For Petitioners Central VA Comm. College, et al.:
William E. Thro
State Solicitor General
Richmond, VA
For Respondent Katz:
Kim Martin Lewis
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
Cincinnati, OH

 


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

 

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