Petitions to watch | Conference of January 24
At its Conference on January 24, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as a civil court’s resolution of a church property dispute, a motion for new trial based on juror dishonesty in voir dire, qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment liability, and the effect of state abatement rules on Section 1983 claims.
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features 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. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.
Issue: Whether an individual who freely leaves but fails to return to the halfway house where he resides on supervised release has committed the felony offense of “escape” from “custody” under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
Issue: Whether courts deciding qualified immunity in Fourth Amendment cases should consider the factual reasonableness of the search or seizure when applying the second, “clearly established” prong of the test.
Issue: Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) permits a party moving for a new trial based on juror dishonesty during voir dire to introduce juror testimony about statements made during deliberations that tend to show the alleged dishonesty.
Issue: Whether, when the violation of an individual’s constitutional rights causes that person’s death, a Section 1983 claim arising from that violation can be maintained despite contrary state abatement rules.
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by holding that “some form” of Waller v. Georgia's specific four-part test was clearly established for partial courtroom closures and that a state court could unreasonably apply the modified test in the partial-closure context.
Issue: Whether the favorable-termination rule under Heck v. Humphrey applies to a § 1983 claim — thereby indefinitely postponing the statute of limitations — when a plaintiff alleges false imprisonment based on a sentence that has been fully served.
Issue: Whether New Mexico is in violation of the Rio Grande Compact and the Rio Grande Project Act, which apportion water to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries.
Issue: Whether the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution allows States to tax goods distributed by out-of-state wholesalers more heavily than goods distributed by in-state wholesalers.
Issue: Whether a state “discriminates against a rail carrier” in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 11501(b)(4) when the state generally requires commercial and industrial businesses, including rail carriers, to pay a sales-and-use tax but grants exemptions from the tax to the railroads’ competitors.
Issue: (1) Whether the of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) predominance requirement can be satisfied when the court has not found that the aggregate of common liability issues predominates over the aggregate of individualized issues at trial and when neither injury nor damages can be proven on a classwide basis; and (2) whether a class may be certified when most members have never experienced the alleged defect and both fact of injury and damages would have to be litigated on a member-by-member basis.
Issue: (1) Whether the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) is satisfied by the purported “efficiency” of a class trial on one abstract issue, without considering the host of individual issues that would need to be tried to resolve liability and damages and without determining whether the aggregate of common issues predominates over the aggregate of individual issues; and (2) whether a product liability class may be certified where it is undisputed that most members did not experience the alleged defect or harm.
Issue: (1) Whether after Comcast Corp. v. Behrend the absence of a showing that injury can be proved on a classwide basis precludes class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); and (2) whether at the class certification stage of litigation a district court must analyze the admissibility of expert testimony under the standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Issue: Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), state court adjudications are per se unreasonable and not entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Recommended Citation: Mary Pat Dwyer, Petitions to watch | Conference of January 24, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 22, 2014, 10:37 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-january-24/