Comments on: Petitions to Watch: Opening Conference

By: MJD

MJD — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:59:56 +0000

Isn’t Allred v. Sup. Ct. of Calif.,05-1505 (gag order in Pamela Vitale murder trial) moot now that the trial is over?

By: Norma Chase

Norma Chase — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 02:20:14 +0000

I hope you are right about Moore v. Maryland, 05-1411 (right of indigent defendant to state-funded expert assistance even when he has private counsel). (I say “he” because I do not worry about gender neutrality when miscreants are under discussion.) I’d love to have a Supreme Court case to show to the next courthouse bureaucrat who tells me “If his grandmother hired you, let her pay for the transcript.”

I have some material on my web site (www.genericlawyer.com) on the issue. There are two links on my main page, one to some case law quotations I gathered on the right of a privately represented defendant to IFP status, with a focus on transcript costs, and the other to an online article discussing state-paid expert assistance to privately represented IFP defendants.

By: Norma Chase

Norma Chase — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:08:17 +0000

Re Ted Metzler’s post and the disclaimer it includes: sounds like a good way to pick them.

As a solo who is unlikely to become involved in a case that the nation watches, I operate on the parsley theory of discretionary review: even though the Court’s plate is full, a well-presented little issue might become the sprig of parsley on that plate.

By: Kent Scheidegger

Kent Scheidegger — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:54:02 +0000

Moxfulder1, since your case has an unusual name, it is fairly easy to search for it on the Supreme Court’s docket search page, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/docket.html The truth may be out there, but Coltec v. US is not.

Searching for the “Williams case” would be more of a problem. To find a case with a common name, get the lower court docket number and search for that.

By: moxfulder1

moxfulder1 — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:19:35 +0000

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one see which petitions have been filed? I’m particularly interested in whether the Federal Circuit’s decision in Coltec v. U.S. has been appealed.

By: Ted Metzler

Ted Metzler — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:09:35 +0000

I would also add No. 05-1419, Waugh v. Horton, a case presenting a well developed circuit split over whether the forum defendant rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is jurisdictional, or whether it is a nonjurisdictional defect in removal that may be waived if not raised within 30 days of removal. Of course, I would add this petition not only because I think the split merits a grant, but also because I am cocounsel on it.

By: Dan Schweitzer

Dan Schweitzer — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:58:41 +0000

I would add to this list Utah v. Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians, No. 05-1160, and South Dakota v. U.S. Department of Interior, No. 05-1428. Both petitions present the very important question whether Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 465 — which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, “in his discretion,” to acquire land “for Indians” — is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

By: Norma Chase

Norma Chase — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:12:36 +0000

Me again, clinging to the underside of the sieve.

In three of the cases on the list (05-1413, 05-1433, and 05-1515), no response has been filed and the Court has not requested one. There is also a case (06-130) in which the Court requested a response yesterday (due October 13, 2006). I don’t see how those cases can turn up on the October 2, 2006 grant list.