||Summary of QP
|Patrick v. Smith||Kristofer Jorstad
Calif. AG's office
the deferential standard for habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. sec.
2254(d) allows a federal court to grant relief on an
insufficient-evidence claim by accepting the expert testimony of
defense experts over the contrary opinionsof prosecution experts
believed by the jury and found sufficient by the state appellate court.
|Irving N. v. Rhode Island Dept. of Children, Youth, and Families||Samuel Bagenstos
Wash. U. Law School
|S. Ct. of
Whether Title II of the ADA applies to termination of parental rights proceedings initiated by state agencies and prosecuted in state courts.
|Horn v. Michael||Amy Zapp
PA AG's office
a court of appeals may entertain an appeal filed by a capital
defendant's discharged counsel when that defendant has been determined
to be competent, has waived his right to federal habeas corpus review,
and objects to such an appeal.
Grange v. Wash. State Rep. Party/
Wash. v. Wash. State Rep. Party
Whether the First Amendment prohibits
top-two election systems that allow a candidate to disclose on the
ballot the name of the party he or she personally prefers. (Also
available in 06-730: Response
of Democratic Party, Response
of Republican Party, Response
of Grange, Reply
v. New York/
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. New York
the court of appeals erred in invalidating an EPA rule on the ground
that the phrase "any physical change" in the definition of
"modification" in Section 111(a)(4) of the Clean Air Act
unambiguously requires EPA to adopt the broadest meaning of the phrase.
(Also available in 06-736: Resp.
Alliance of Auto Manufactuters, et al. in Support, Resp.
Nat'l Environmental Devel. Assoc. in Support, Resp.
United Air Regulatory Group in Support, Resp.
Virginia, et al. in Support, New
York, et al. in opposition, Reply.)
Mexico v. Romero
N.M. AG's office
|S. Ct. of
Whether the New Mexico Supreme Court's
decision has created
a zone where no federal or state criminal jurisdiction may be invoked
certain lands within the original exterior boundaries of a
||06-828||Whether Texas v. Cobb precludes review of a
capital murder conviction based upon evidence obtained when - after
petitioner exercised her Miranda
rights during custodial interrogation and asked for an attorney, to
whom she later entrusted confidential, incriminatory information - the
State then compelled her attorney to disclose the very information that
petitioner lawfully refused to provide to the police. (Also
|LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg, and Assoc.||Peter Stris
Whittier Law School
Whether sec. 502(a)(2) of ERISA permits a
participant to bring an action to recover losses attributable to his
account in a "defined contribution plan" that were caused by fiduciary
breach. (Also available: BIO,
Amicus of Seven Law Profs)
Security Consulting v. Nordan
Kirkland & Ellis
Whether a federal district court that
lacks subject-matter matter jurisdiction over a removed action must
than remand the action when the state court also lacks jurisdiction.
(This is the feature case in Legal Times
Industries v. Williams
a corporation and its agents can constitute an association-in-fact RICO
enterprise and whether a company's hiring of its own employees may
constitute participation in the conduct of an enterprise that is
distinct from the company itself.