Filings in today’s grants
Below the jump are petition filings in the seven cases granted certiorari today for OT09. Here is this morning’s order list and here is this afternoon’s order list.
Docket: 08-645
Title: Abbott v. Abbott
Issue: Whether a ne exeat clause confers a “right of custody” within the meaning of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. [ Howe & Russell represents the petitioner.]
- Opinion below (8th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Respondent’s supplemental brief
- Brief of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law as amicus curiae (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending that certiorari be granted)
Docket: 08-661
Title: American Needle Inc. v. NFL, et al
Issue: Whether NFLP, the NFL, and the teams functioned as a “single entity” when granting the company an exclusive headwear license and therefore could not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, which requires proof of collective action involving “separate entities.”
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief of respondents NFL
- Petitioner’s supplemental brief
- Brief amicus curiae of NHL in support of respondents
- Brief amicus curiae of NBA in support of respondents
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending that certiorari be denied)
Docket: 08-803, 08-810, 08-826
Title: Alfieri v. Conkright; Conkright v. Frommert; Pietrowski v. Conkright
Issue: Whether the statutory requirements for releases of claims under the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act are applicable to ERISA claims; whether Firestone deference applies to a plan administrator’s interpretation of benefits when issued outside of the administrative claims process; and whether a totality-of-the-circumstances test should be used to determine if an employee has “knowingly and voluntarily” waived pension benefits by signing a boilerplate release.
- Opinion Below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (08-803)
- Petition for certiorari (08-810)
- Petition for certiorari (08-826)
- Brief in opposition(08-803, 08-826)
- Respondent’s supplemental brief (08-803, 08-826)
- Brief in opposition(08-810)
- Brief in opposition of 62 respondents and 7 cross-respondents (08-810)
- Petitioner’s reply (08-810)
- Petitioner’s supplemental brief (08-810)
- Brief amicus curiae of Business Roundtable (in support of petitioners in 08-810)
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States (recommending that certiorari be denied)
Docket: 08-1196
Title: Weyhrauch v. United States
Issue: Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant’s honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.
Docket: 08-1200
Title: Jerman, v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, et al.
Issue: Whether a debt collector’s legal error qualifies for the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. [Howe & Russell represents the petitioner]
Docket: 08-1214
Title: Granite Rock Company v. nternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al.
Issue: Whether a federal court has jurisdiction to determine collective bargaining agreement formation and whether a §301(a) action is available against a union that is not a direct signatory to the collective bargaining agreement.
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition of respondents International Brotherhood of Teamsters
- Brief in opposition of respondent Teamsters Local 287
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of Center on National Labor Policy, Inc.
- Brief amicus curiae of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
- Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Manufacturers
Docket: 07-11191
Title: Briscoe v. Virginia
Issue: If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?
