Today’s Orders | 10.1.08
on Oct 1, 2008 at 10:41 am
The orders list is available here. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in ten cases this morning. The names of the cases, along with all available certiorari-stage filings, are available after the jump.
Docket: 07-1309
Title: Boyle v. United States
Issue: Whether, to establish the existence of an “enterprise” under RICO, the goverment must prove the existence of an entity with an ascertainable structure apart from the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages.
- Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
_____________
Docket: 07-1356
Title: Kansas v. Ventris
Issue: Whether prosecutors may use a defendant’s statement – made in the absence of a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel – to impeach a witness, as opposed to during its case-in-chief.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amici curiae of New Mexico, et al. (in support of petitioner)
______________
Docket: 07-1372
Title: Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al.
Issue: Whether a 1993 congressional resolution requires
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Commissioner of Public Lands for the State of New Mexico (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amici curiae of Washington, et al. (in support of petitioner)
______________
Docket: 07-1410
Title: United States v. Navajo Nation
Issue: Whether the Court’s prior decision in United States v. Navajo Nation (2003) foreclosed a finding that the government breached fiduciary duties in connection with Indian coal lease amendments.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
______________
Docket: 07-1529
Title: Montejo v.
Issue: Whether an indigent defendant must affirmatively accept the appointment of counsel to preclude future police interrogation in the absence the attorney.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
______________________
Docket: 07-1601; 07-1607
Title: Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, et al. v.
Issue: Whether the petitioners were incorrectly held jointly and severally liable for environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA.
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (07-1601)
- Petition for certiorari (07-1607)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply (07-1601)
- Petitioner’s reply (07-1607)
- Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al. (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Association of American Railroads (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of International Association of Defense Counsel (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Civil Justice Association of California (in support of petitioner)
______________
Docket: 07-9712
Title: Puckett v. United States
Issue: Whether forfeited claims that the government breach a plea agreement are subject to “plain error†review.
______________
Docket: 07-9995
Title: Rivera v. Illinois
Issue: Whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant’s preemptory challenge that resulted in the challenged juror being seated requires automatic reversal of a conviction.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
_____________
Docket: 07-10441
Title: Corley v.
Issue: Whether federal law permits the suppression of a voluntary confession made more than six hours after arrest but before presentment to a magistrate, as a consequence of unreasonable delay in presentment.
- Opinion below (3rd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
_____________
Title:
Issue: Whether delays caused by a public defender can deprive a criminal defendant of his right to a speedy trial.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of Vermont)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
