Today’s Orders
on Apr 27, 2009 at 10:04 am
The Court has granted certiorari in three cases: Schwab v. Reilly (08-538) [limited to questions one and two], NRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, et al (08-674), and Kucana v. Holder (08-911). The Court has invited the views of the Solicitor General in Patton v. Harris, et al. (08-7683).
The orders list is available here. Filings for these cases are below the jump.
Docket: 08-538
Title:Â Schwab v. Reilly
Issue (grant limited to questions one and two):
1. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, is the exemption limited to the specific amount claimed, or do the numbers being equal operate to “fully exempt†the asset, regardless of its true value?
2. When a debtor claims an exemption using a specific dollar amount that is equal to the value placed on the asset by the debtor, must a trustee who wishes to sell the asset object to the exemptions within the thirty day period of Rule 4003, even though the amount claimed as exempt and the type of property are within the exemption statute?
- Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply brief
- Brief amicus curiae for National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (in support of petitioner)
Docket: 08-674
Title:Â NRG Power Marketing, LLC, et al. v. Maine Public Utilities Commission, et al.
Issue: Whether the principles of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s review of wholesale electricity rates set by contract when those rates are challenged by a non-contracting party.
- Opinion below (DC Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition of Maine Public Utilities et al.
- Brief in opposition of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Petitioner’s reply brief
- Brief amicus curiae of the Electric Power Supply Association, et al. (in support of petitioners)
- Brief amicus curiae of American Public Power Association and National Rural Electric Cooperative (in support of respondents)
Docket: 08-911
Title:Â Kucana v. Holder
Issue: What is the scope of the jurisdictional stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and whether the statute removes jurisdiction from federal courts to review rulings on motions to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals?
