Christa Culver Petitions to Watch

Posted Tue, June 7th, 2011 2:30 pm

Petitions to watch | Conference of 06.09.11

This edition of “Petitions to watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices' June 9 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.

Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd. v. United States Dist. Court

Docket: 10-738
Issue(s): (1) Whether a sentencing court, confronted with the task of determining victims’ losses pursuant to the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, may deny restitution to the victims because it believes that the victims might be able to recoup their losses in an alternative forum. (2) Whether the Eighth Circuit’s judgments denying mandamus relief should be reversed and remanded because it failed to provide any reasons for denying such relief, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).

Certiorari stage documents:

Cate v. Pirtle

Docket: 10-868
Issue(s): Whether a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner based on its view that the state court erred in applying the state-law standard of evidentiary sufficiency governing state parole decisions.

Certiorari stage documents:

Steinbeck v. McIntosh & Otis, Inc.

Docket: 10-1119
Issue(s): Can the termination rights that Congress granted to authors and statutorily defined members of their families in the Copyright Act be extinguished by a copyright holder’s agreement even though that holder could not exercise the termination rights, or does such an agreement instead constitute an "agreement to the contrary" under the Act?

Certiorari stage documents:

Consolidation Coal Co. v. United States

Note: Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioners in this case, which is listed without regard for the likelihood that it will be granted.
Docket: 10-1020
Issue(s): Whether, when applied to coal that is eventually exported, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977's Abandoned Mine Land fee - which by regulation is not assessed and collected until the time of first sale, transfer, or use of the coal - violates Article I, § 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which provides that "[n]o Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

Certiorari stage documents:

The following petitions have been re-listed for the conference of June 9.  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.

Messerschmidt v. Millender (Granted )

Docket: 10-704
Issue(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:

Gonzalez v. Thaler (Granted )

Docket: 10-895
Issue(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:

Eisai Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA

Docket: 10-1070
Issue(s): When a case becomes moot as the result of a third party’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:

Cavazos v. Smith

Docket: 10-1115
Issue(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. § 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:

 

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline, Featured

Recommended Citation: Christa Culver, Petitions to watch | Conference of 06.09.11, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 7, 2011, 2:30 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-06-09-11/