Three notable petitions were filed recently: one case arising from a police officer’s use of deadly force, Sammis v. Nance; and two cases about standing, City of Los Angeles v. Kern County (standing to assert a Commerce Clause challenge) and Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc. v. Pedreira (standing to sue as a state taxpayer).

The petitions, the opinions below, and the questions presented follow the jump.  Briefs in opposition have not yet been filed.

Title: City of Los Angeles v. Kern County
Docket: 09-1111
Issue: Whether an in-state plaintiff lacks prudential standing under the “zone of interest” test to assert a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a local ordinance that impedes the flow of commerce.

Title: Sammis v. Nance
Docket: 09-1115
Issues: (1) Whether a police officer may be held liable on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to prevent another officer's use of force when that force was used within a short period such that a reasonable officer in the same circumstance would not have had a realistic opportunity to intervene; (2) whether the commands “get on the ground, drop the gun” are sufficient to satisfy the warning required prior to the use of deadly force; and (3) whether a party's self-serving testimony that contradicts his or her prior statement is sufficient to create a fact question and thereby avoid an adverse summary judgment ruling on the defense of qualified immunity.

Title: Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc. v. Pedreira
Docket: 09-1121
Issues: (1) Whether the “legislative enactment” nexus test–requiring a nexus between a taxpayer’s status and the type of “legislative enactment” he is challenging–applies to state taxpayers as it does to federal taxpayers; and (2) whether Article III confers upon federal courts broader authority to address alleged Establishment Clause violations by state legislatures than to address such violations by Congress.

Posted in Cases in the Pipeline