Court grants three cases, bypasses Booker issue
on Nov 28, 2005 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide when a federal court is to issue an injunction after finding that a patent has been infringed. In accepting a case involving the online auction site, eBay, the Court also asked attorneys to argue whether the Court should reconsider prior precedents on the issue. (eBay v. MercExchange, 05-130.) The Federal Circuit had ruled that a finding of patent infringement must lead to a permanent injunction, in all but exceptional cases. Among the Court’s precedents that it will be reexamining in reviewing the case is Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. in 1908, according to Monday’s order adding a question for review.
The Court also sent a strong signal that it is not ready to confront the question of retroactive application of its decision early this year in Booker v. U.S. limiting federal criminal sentence enhancements based on facts not found by a jury. The Court denied review in 11 cases on the issue, including a case, Clark v. U.S (05-5491), in which the Solicitor General waived a response, and the Court then asked for one. As usual, there was no explanation for any of the denials. The Solicitor General had argued that Booker should not be applied retroactively, because it failed the “new rule” test of the 1989 decision in Teague v. Lane.
The Court agreed, for the third time, to review the question of the right of managers of employee benefit plans to sue to recover benefits from money that a plan participant received from another source. (Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, 05-260). Lower courts are split on the issue, which the federal government has said may affect more than $1 billion a year in potential reimbursement claims by benefit plans.
And the Court, replacing a case that was dismissed two weeks ago, took on a new test of whether a company seeking civil damages under RICO for mail or wire fraud must prove that it relied on the fraud and was injured as a result. The “reliance” issue has divided the lower courts as they have struggled to interpret a 1992 Supreme Court decision in Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp. The new case is Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 04-433).
The Court asked the Solicitor General for the federal government’s views on the case of Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co. (05-381), testing the proof required under antitrust law in a case involving alleged predatory buying — an issue that arises as a sequel to the Court’s predatory selling decision in 1993 in Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
In a summary decision, without dissent, the Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit had erred in deciding an issue of state criminal law in direct contradiction of an interpretation given that law by the Ohio Supreme Court in the same case. The issue arose in a murder case in which Kenneth T. Richey was convicted of killing a two-year-old girl by starting a fire that was intended to kill the girl’s mother — Richey’s ex-girlfriend — and her new boyfriend. Richey was convicted on a theory of transferred intent for the death of the child. Her mother and the boyfriend escaped unharmed. The Supreme Court decision came in the case of Bradshaw v. Richey (05-101).
The Court’s lengthy list of denials included, besides the 11 cases on the Booker retroactivity question, the issue of whether the Constitution protects a renter from having city utility services cut off because the landlord did not pay a bill run up by a prior tenant. The Sixth Circuit found the utility cutoff policy of the city of Columbus, Ohio, to be a violation of equal protection rights of tenants who did not owe the bill. The case was Columbus, O., v. Golden (05-354).
The Court refused to clarify the power of federal judges to dismiss a lawsuit because some evidence that might emerge could involve national secrets. The case involved a fired FBI translator, Sibel Edmonds, who contended that others working in her unit had compromised national security. The Justice Department contended that the case could not be tried without risk of exposing national secrets, and a federal judge agreed. Edmonds’ failed appeal came in Edmonds v. Justice Department (05-190).
