Petitions to Watch | Conference of 10.10.08 and 10.17.08
on Oct 2, 2008 at 11:11 am
This edition of “Petitions to Watch†features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conferences on October 10 and October 17. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted. (Note: this week, the list also includes a pauper petition presenting the same issue as a paid petition.) To access previous editions of Petitions to Watch, visit our archives here on SCOTUSwiki.
Conference of October 10, 2008
__________________
Docket: 07-1437
Title: Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc.
Issue: Whether a federal court order remanding a case to state court after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is subject to appellate review.
- Opinion below (Federal Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Docket: 08-76
Title: Brunson v. Harris
Issue: Whether the one-year time period for filing federal habeas petitions under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is subject to equitable tolling.
__________________
Docket: 08-106
Title: Mora v. New York, et al.
Issue: Whether Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which requires law enforcement to inform foreign nationals of their right to have their consulate notified of their arrest, creates an individual right enforceable in courts.
- Opinion below (2nd Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Docket: 08-163
Title: McCann v. Cochran, et al.
Issue: Whether a prima facie case of intentional discrimination requires a judicial finding that the defendant gave more favorable treatment to a “nearly identical” comparator.
- Opinion below (11th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
__________________
Conference of October 17, 2008
__________________
Docket: 07-1566
Title: Marcrum v. Roper
Issue: Whether, under Strickland v. Washington (1984), the prejudicial effect of errors by trial counsel must be assessed individually or cumulatively.
- Opinion below (8th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of petitioner)
__________________
Docket: 08-108; 08-5316
Title: Flores-Figueroa v. United States; Nicasio Mendoza-Gonzalez v. United States
Issue: Whether an individual who used a false means of identification but did not know it belonged to another person can be convicted of “aggravated identity theft†under 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). (Disclosure: Howe & Russell represents the petitioner in 08-108.)
- Opinion below (8th Circuit) (08-108)
- Opinion below (8th Circuit) (08-5316)
- Petition for certiorari (08-108)
- Petition for certiorari (08-5316)
- Brief of the United States (08-108)
- Brief of the United States (08-5316)
- Petitioner’s reply (08-108)
__________________
