Petitions to Watch | Conference of 11.13.09

ERIN MILLER NOV 11, 2009 11:00 AM

This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ next private conference on November 13.  As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.  Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.

Docket: 08-1564
Title: American Civil Liberties Union of Florida v. Miami-Dade County School Board
Issues: Whether, in a First Amendment case, the district court’s findings of historical fact, motivation, intent, pretext and credibility are entitled to deference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6), or, as the court of appeals held, are instead subject to plenary review; whether the courts of appeals are required to undertake “independent review” of a trial court’s factual findings when those findings support a holding in favor of First Amendment claims.

• Opinion below (11th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition

Docket: 09-198
Title: Medela AG v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc.
Issue: Whether a person accused of patent infringement has a right to an independent judicial, as distinct from lay jury, determination of whether an asserted patent claim satisfies the “non-obvious subject matter” condition for patentability.

• Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of Apple, Cisco Systems, Google, Microsoft, et al.
• Amicus brief of Intel, SAP America, and Shoretel, Inc.

Docket: 09-322
Title: Gregory v. Dillard’s, Inc.
Issue: To set forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in the retail context, must a minority shopper claim and show that the retailer actively and intentionally obstructed his efforts, making the shopper’s purchase impossible, or does the equal “enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship” provision of the statute prohibit racial harassment and race-based surveillance that interferes with the making of the contract but does not actually prevent its formation?

• Opinion below (8th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Docket: 09-326
Title: Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.
Issue: Whether the doctrine of laches is applicable to a cancellation petition filed pursuant to Section 1064(3) of the Lanham Act.

• Opinion below (D.C. Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the National Congress of American indians
• Amicus brief of law professors
• Amicus brief of psychology professors
• Amicus brief of the Social Justice Advocacy Group

Other petitions from earlier editions of Petitions to Watch were re-listed for the November 13 conference:

• Wong v. Belmontes (08-1263) – originally Conference 9.29
• Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (08-1371) – originally Conference 10.19
• McComb v. Crehan (08-1566) – originally Conference 11.6
• Noriega v. Pastrana (09-35) – originally Conference 10.9
• Magwood v. Culliver (09-158) – originally Conference 11.6 [involves lawyers from Akin Gump and Howe & Russell]
• United States Defense Department v. American Civil Liberties Union (09-160) – originally Conference 10.9

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY