Petitions to Watch | Conference of 10.31.08
on Oct 16, 2008 at 12:36 pm
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on October 31. As always, the list contains 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 October 17, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.
Conference of October 31, 2008
__________________
Docket: 07-1468
Title: Manning v. Astrue
Issue: Whether attorney’s fees awarded under the Equal Access to Justice Act must be paid to the plaintiff directly, where it may be attached by the government for outstanding debts, or to the plaintiff’s attorney.
- Opinion below (10th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
__________________
Docket: 07-1547
Title: Aguilera, et al. v. Baca
Issue: Whether public employers violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by punishing employees for refusing to provide potentially incriminating testimony in internal investigations, where it did not inform them the testimony could not be used against them in criminal proceedings but that their refusal to testify could result in administrative discipline.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of Byron L. Warnken (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., et al. (in support of petitioner)
__________________
Docket: 08-6
Title: District Attorney’s Office for the Third Judicial District, et al. v. Osborne
Issue: Whether a defendant may access a state’s biological evidence following a conviction under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
__________________
Docket: 08-33
Title: Smith v. United States
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that the decision to impound a vehicle for community caretaking purposes without a warrant be made in accordance with standardized police procedures. (Disclose: Akin Gump and Howe & Russell represent the petitioner)
- Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Docket: 08-38
Title: Molski, et al. v. Evergreen Dynasty Corporation, dba Mandarin Touch Restaurant
Issue: Whether a litigant or attorney may be dubbed a “vexatious litigant” under the Americans with Disabilities Act, barring them from filing future suits without a district court’s approval, in the absence of an evidentiary hearing or finding that prior suits were non-meritorious.
__________________
Docket: 08-120
Title: Duke, Jr., et al. v. Leake, et al.
Issue: Whether provisions of North Carolina election law that permit publicly funded judicial candidates to receive extra money if targeted by independent advocacy groups, and that impose additional reporting requirements on privately funded candidates, violate the First Amendment.
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amici curiae of Dean Martin, et al. (in support of petitioner)
__________________
Docket: 08-214
Title: Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc., et al. v Townsend
Issue: Whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Brief amici curiae of American Waterways Operators, et al. (in support of petitioners)
- Brief amicus curiae of Cruise Lines International Association (in support of petitioners)
- Brief amicus curiae of United Maritime Group, LLC (in support of petitioners)
__________________
Docket: 08-269
Title: CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Rivenburgh
Issue: Whether there is a relaxed standard of causation or negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, which allows railroad employees to recover for workplace injury or death.
- Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of the Association of American Railroads (in support of petitioner)
__________________
