Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
14-641SD-3C, LLC v. Oliver(1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that petitioners are subject to antitrust suits seeking injunctive relief against the foundational terms of a decade-old standard setting and technology licensing arrangement for as long as third parties continue to make sales of goods embodying that technology; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it treated its statute of limitations analysis as dispositive on the issue of laches, without considering the broader equitable issues associated with permitting challenges to long-settled business arrangements. (Opinion by )
14-654Salahuddin v. United StatesWhether the conspiracy offense proscribed in the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), requires proof that a defendant committed an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. (Opinion by )
14-434ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen(1) Whether petitioners’ First Amendment challenge seeking an exemption from California's campaign-finance disclosure requirements is moot regarding (a) expunging past records, or (b) preventing further release of those records where the “court can fashion some form of meaningful relief” by (a) “ordering the Government to destroy or return any and all copies it may have in its possession,” Church of Scientology of California v. United States, or (b) “preventing further [government] disclosure,” United States v. Sells Engineering; (2) whether, if moot, the exemption challenge is “within the . . . exception for cases capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life; (3) whether the exemption challenge is ripe regarding future disclosure; and (4) whether petitioners are entitled to an exemption from challenged disclosure provisions. (Opinion by )
14-7244Shao v. Wang(1) Whether the child should have rights of liberty, including not to be forced to be separated from his/her mother, to live in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by implementing the international standards of the child’s rights accorded by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1990 and the Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959; (2) whether Section 3042 of California’s Family Code should be declared to be void for violating the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in discriminating against the child’s rights for the child in the ages of four to thirteen by requiring the Court to consider the child’s wish only for the children of age fourteen or over, which is in conflict with Sections 366.26(g) and 317(e)(2) of California’s Welfare and Institutions Code which mandates a court to consider a child’s wishes from age four; (3) whether a second or even third right to appeal should be created when an appellant was not afforded an opportunity to pursue her first right of appeal in the state’s appellate courts, in consideration of the facts that (a) the policy of Section 68081 of the California Government Code mandates rehearing when a litigant was not given notice to a dispositive case; (b) The Republic of China in Taiwan has two rights of appeal to its highest court, the Supreme Court, created more than 80 years’ ago; and (c) cries of appellants nationwide for injustice because of only one right of appeal; (4) whether there is a compelling reason to review de novo when petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity to pursue her first right to appeal as the California Court of Appeals broke the laws for appeals by (a) denying calendar preference and delaying review by 19 months; (b) denying petitioner’s right of statutory oral argument in Rule 8.256(c)(2) of the California Rules of Court, Art. VI, Clause 3 of the California Constitution, and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (c) failing to determine crucial causes in the opinion as mandated by Article VI, Section 14 of the California Constitution and in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (d) issuing a surprising dismissal of appeal based on an unbriefed case and further denying petitioner rehearing mandated by Section 68081 of the California Government Code; (5) whether “good cause” as a ground for removing a child’s attorney under California Court Rule 5.240(f)(2) is void for vagueness and unenforceable; what the standards are for removing a child’s attorney; whether a child’s attorney should be removed for failure to represent the child’s wishes; and whether, by having a right to express their wishes in litigation that concerns them as prescribed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child has a right to select and remove his/her attorney who obstructs his/her wishes; (6) whether the state court severely violates appellant’s human rights guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment by re-issuing parental deprival orders without notice, motion, or evidentiary hearing, after the same were set aside; and (7) whether the federal remedy of habeas corpus in 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be expanded in interpretation and application to include parental deprival. (Opinion by )
14-531Wetzel v. CoxWhether this Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan provides a basis to allow a federal habeas petitioner to reopen the judgment, years after finality, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards