Petitions to Watch | Conference of 5.8.08
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of May 8. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, including the list for the upcoming conference of April 25, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.
Issues raised in the current list of petitions include asylum eligibility for Chinese spouses in traditional marriages, antitrust implications arising from the master tobacco settlement, the impact of failing to mention post-release supervision in a plea agreement, and whether Chicago violated the First Amendment rights of religious groups surrounding O’Hare International Airport.
__________________
Case name: Yang v. Mukasey
Issue: Whether members of traditional marriages not recognized by the Chinese government may qualify for asylum if their spouse is forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization.
__________________
Case name: Centerior Energy Corporation, et al. v. Milkulski, et al.
Issue: Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over shareholder suits filed under state law alleging overpayment of corporate income taxes. (Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the petitioner.)
- Opinion below (6th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of the Chamber of Commerce (in support of the petitioner)
- Amicus brief of the Tax Foundation (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Case name: Sanders v. Brown, et al.
Issue: Whether the Sherman Antitrust Act preempts
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition (state of
- Brief in opposition (manufacturers)
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Vyta Corp. v. Depository Trust and Clearing Corp., et al.
Issue: Whether state-law claims alleging misrepresentations and omissions by securities transaction clearing agencies are conflict preempted.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name: Buss v. Stevens
Issue: Whether, for purposes of habeas corpus, a capital defendant receives ineffective assistance of counsel from attorneys who call an expert during the sentencing phase whose original report found no evidence of mental health problems.
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether, under Santobello v.
- Opinion below (Court of Appeals of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
Case name: Ormco Corp. v. Align Technology, Inc.
Issue: Whether courts may look beyond the text of the claims in a patent to determine the scope of its inventor’s right.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Case name:
Issue: Whether
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Amicus brief of Civil Liberties for Urban Believers and the American Indian Movement (in support of the petitioner)
__________________
Any chance of expanding coverage to include follow-up on cases that are remanded? Records of settlements, if they are not confidential?
Comment by Beverly Hodgson — April 23, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
case # 07-1003
Sleeper Farms v Agway
May 8th, conference
As I read Agway’s defenses to their actions that stripped us our livelihood and our dignity, the defendent compares their acts to the repossession of an automobile because someone wasn’t paying their payment (Russell v. Performance Toyota, inc.), a strike between a union and and its employer (United Packinghouse v. Needham Packing Co.), a buyer’s refusal to accept a shipment of goods and the seller’s subsequent sale to another buyer (Southwest Industries v. Wilmod Co.), or a glorified billing dispute (Welborn Clinic v. MedQuist), it becomes obvious that their is not a case on point, or at least one that has reached the high courts that compare to the extreme measure of Agway’s actions. It is also apparent that self-help, as the court labeled the defendants actions, or the defendents characterization as an alledged self-help (even though the fact is undisputed that over $51,000 was withheld from our crop payment), has many meanings and purposes which only the courts can control. Self-help in our case was a buyer (Agway) accepting the goods from seller (Sleeper Farms) on an ongoing business relationship, only to make a frivolous claim and withhold over $51,000 of our hard earned money, all awhile coercing us to file a false insurance claim, followed by a ultimatum that we sign a legal document releasing defendant of any legal liability with our farm, or the business relationship would end. Agway’s extreme measures of self-help and the strong arm tactics executed in this case, if tolerated, puts society and every small business at risk that signs a contract including an arbitration clause, which clearly was not the intent of congress with the enactment of The Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. This is bad law which leaves no deterrence from others to follow suit, and one only needs to ask what the results would have been if Agway would not have breeched the arbitration agreement, and simply stated their claim and promptly demanded arbitration under the protection of the FAA.
Comment by Vaughn Sleeper — April 30, 2008 @ 9:35 am
More of a question than a comment. Case 07-9734, Todd Celley v. Kathleen Stevens.
Do you see any “hope” for Celley in this matter? Conference is scheduled for May 8th.
Comment by Todd Celley — April 30, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
Does anyone happen to know when the Court will release orders for this conference (which falls on a Thursday)? Will it be the next day (Friday), or the following Monday?
(I know that orders for Friday conferences tend to be released the following Monday, but I wasn’t certain about a Thursday conference.)
Thanks!
Comment by Tom Huff — May 2, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
SCOTUS moves in mysterious ways. But clearly Celley has standing, facts and precedent in his side. His analogy of the Duke LAX case is compelling from a background perspective and appropriate for The Court to consider especially as these matters are becoming too numerous. Stevens seemingly lied damaging Celley. Michigan State law and U.S. Constitutional law should favor his motion
Comment by Sam Fauser — May 6, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Any idea when or if we can expect news on the Exxon Valdez case
Comment by Kevin Huck — May 8, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Tom, Monday is the norm for orders lists, for Thursday conferences as well as Fridays.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — May 8, 2008 @ 3:31 pm