Petitions to Watch | Conference of 12.4.09
on Dec 3, 2009 at 11:11 am
This edition of â€œPetitions to Watchâ€ features cases up for consideration at the Justicesâ€™ next private conference on Friday, December 4.Â As always, it lists the petitions on the Courtâ€™s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.Â Links to all previous editions are available in ourÂ SCOTUSwiki archive.
Docket: 08-1332; 08-1472
Title: USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. v. Quon; USA Mobility Wireless, Inc. v. Quon
08-1472: Whether a service provider is liable as a matter of law under the Stored Communications Act for disclosing to a subscriber of the service the contents of communications stored on the providerâ€™s computers, without the consent of the sender or recipient of the message.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (08-1332)
- Brief in opposition (08-1332; 08-1472)
- Petitioner’s reply (08-1332)
- Conditional cross-petition for certiorari (08-1472)
- Response to conditional cross-petition for certiorari (08-1472)
- Reply of cross-petitioners (08-1472)
- Amicus brief of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties
Title: Ryan v. Scott
Issues: (1) Can the application of a state procedural rule be characterized as “inadequate” under the adequate-state-ground doctrine–and therefore unenforceable on federal habeas corpus review–based upon one Arizona appellate case that involved the application of a different rule to different factual and procedural circumstances? (2) Can a federal habeas court refuse to consider a stateâ€™s procedural requirement that issues
be raised in the body of a brief, rather than in an appendix, in determining whether a petitioner has fairly presented his claims to the stateâ€™s courts?
Title: Ricci v. Kamienski
Issues: What is the standard of review for a federal appellate court analyzing a sufficiency-of-evidence claim in a habeas petition under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. Â§2254(d)(1)?