Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
12-1078Samantar v. YousufWhether a foreign official’s common-law immunity for acts performed on behalf of a foreign state is abrogated by plaintiffs’ allegations that those official acts violate jus cogens norms of international law. (Opinion by )
12-786Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under § 271(a). (Opinion by )
12-1035Oklahoma v. Wolf(1) Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred when it created a split of authority amongst the lower courts by rejecting the universally-recognized limitations on the scope of this Court’s decision in Lamber v. California, which held that a defendant’s knowledge of an ordinance is constitutionally irrelevant except in a narrow class of convictions where the ordinance involves conduct that is “wholly passive” and conditions do not lead one to inquire about the existence of a regulation; and (2) Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision holding that due process requires a statute provide a means of individual notice conflicts with this Court’s holding in Texaco v. Short, which held in pertinent part that the notice requirement of due process only requires the legislature to enact the law, publish the law, and provide a period of time for people to become familiar with the law. (Opinion by )
12-992Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating EmployersWhether a district court’s decision on the merits that leaves unresolved a request for contractual attorney’s fees is a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, provides that courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the district courts. (Opinion by )
12-1162Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8Whether California’s Moscone Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 527.3, and Section 1138.1 of the California Labor Code violate the U.S. Constitution by forcing property owners to open private property to the expressive activities of others based on the content of their speech. (Opinion by )