Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
13-873US Foods, Inc. v. Catholic Healthcare West(1) Whether contract-expectation damages are a permissible remedy in a civil RICO action based on alleged fraud, and if so, whether such damages are available even where any expectation was created only by the alleged fraudulent conduct; (2) whether but-for causation in a civil RICO class action may be satisfied by a class-wide presumption of reliance on alleged fraudulent conduct in the absence of any individualized proof that any member of the class actually relied on that conduct; and (3) whether a nationwide class asserting state-law claims under multiple state laws may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the absence of any showing that the state laws at issue are uniformly interpreted and applied. (Opinion by )
13-1010M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett(1) Whether, when construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, courts should presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold; (2) whether, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction should apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans. (Opinion by )
13-980Sweeney v. National Collegiate Athletic AssociationWhether the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) violates the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment by prohibiting states from authorizing sports wagering under state law. (Opinion by )
13-983Elonis v. United StatesWhether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort. (Opinion by )
13-1038Cunningham v. PennsylvaniaWhether the substantive holding in Miller v. Alabama, that a juvenile convicted of a homicide offense cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under the Eighth Amendment unless there is consideration of individual mitigating circumstances, applies on collateral review to petitioner. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards