Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
16-1148Evergreen Partnering Group, Inc. v. Pactiv Corp.(1) Whether Eastman Kodak Industry Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.'s Rule 56 standard or the more stringent “tends to exclude the possibility of independent action” standard articulated in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. applies where the alleged conduct, unlike in Matsushita, is not inherently pro-competitive and is not economically or otherwise irrational; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit improvidently applied the heightened “tends to exclude” test to the petitioner's concerted refusal to deal claim, in circumstances in which it is not warranted, and thus erroneously denied the plaintiff its right to have its case heard by the trier of fact. (Opinion by )
16-1043Clark v. Virginia Department of State Police(1) Whether, by enacting 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2) in 1998, Congress lawfully subjected state employees to suit in state court under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 pursuant to a valid exercise of Congress’s war powers that was consistent with the framework and design of the Constitution; (2) whether Congress lawfully abrogated any sovereign immunity the Virginia Department of State Police purportedly retained with respect to USERRA actions in state court when Congress enacted 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2); and (3) whether the Supreme Court of Virginia erroneously affirmed the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County's decision to sustain the Virginia Department of State Police's amended special plea of sovereign immunity and dismiss petitioner's complaint. (Opinion by )
16-970Rinehart v. CaliforniaWhether the Supreme Court of California erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and Federal Circuits and the Colorado Supreme Court, that the Mining Law of 1972, as amended, does not pre-empt state bans of mining on federal lands despite being “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of that law. (Opinion by )
16-1197QinetiQ U.S. Holdings, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueWhether an Internal Revenue Service Notice of Deficiency, just like any other final agency action, is subject to the reasoned-explanation requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). (Opinion by )
16-1192Allen v. Connecticut Commissioner of Revenue ServicesWhether the Connecticut Supreme Court violated the principles expressed in Helvering v. Horst and Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Chickasaw Nation and widened a conflict among lower courts when it held that Connecticut may tax income from a nonresident's exercise of stock options because he supposedly realized that income when he received the options as compensation for work in Connecticut and not when, as a nonresident, he exercised the options. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot