Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging beginning at 9:45 a.m.

Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
13-7909Espinoza v. United States(1) Whether the Court should resolve the division between the circuits as to whether an offense with a mens rea of recklessness can trigger the sentence enhancement set out in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act; and (2) whether an offense that requires only a mens rea of recklessness toward the act causing or risking injury can ever be “purposeful” as that term was used by this Court when interpreting § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) in Begay v. United States. (Opinion by )
13-884Takushi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LPWhether, pursuant to Section 1635(f) of Title 15 of the U.S. Code, a borrower seeking to rescind a mortgage loan based upon Truth in Lending Act violations must bring suit within three years of loan consummation; and (2) if so, whether such a restrictive interpretation of Section 1635(f) of Title 15 should be limited to prospective application only as a new rule, since most borrowers and their attorneys otherwise relied to their detriment upon a contrary interpretation of the relevant language contained in this Court's 1998 decision in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank. (Opinion by )
13-7451Yates v. United States(1) Whether Mr. Yates was deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation, where the term “tangible object” is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying “tangible object” in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose; and (2) whether the Eleventh Circuit’s affirmance of the district court’s wholesale preclusion of Dr. Richard Cody from testifying at trial as either an expert or lay witness in the defense’s case-in-chief as a drastic sanction for the defense’s inadvertent failure to include Dr. Cody on the defense’s trial witness list violated Mr. Yates’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process, compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to present a complete defense, even though Dr. Cody: (1) was listed as an expert witness on the government’s trial witness list; (2) testified for the government in a Daubert hearing on the morning that the jury trial commenced; and (3) was under a defense subpoena for trial. (Opinion by )
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; and (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 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans versus collectively bargained plans. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards