Petitions of the week
on Jan 4, 2019 at 2:40 pm
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when an “offer[] to sell” under the Patent Act occurs, the scope of the review Strickland v. Washington requires to determine whether an error rendered counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient, the validity of a foreclosure sale that violated 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3), and the scope of a federal court’s jurisdiction when determining whether resolution of a state-law claim would involve a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.
The petitions of the week are:
Issue: Whether, under the first prong of Strickland v. Washington, a court must evaluate counsel’s overall performance in determining whether a single error is sufficiently egregious to render counsel’s representation constitutionally deficient.
Issue: Whether federal courts lack authority to inquire into the nature and scope of an alleged state-law claim in determining whether resolution of that claim would involve interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.
Issue: Whether, under the Patent Act, an “offer[] to sell” occurs when the offer is actually made or when the offer contemplates that the proposed sale will take place.
Issues: (1) Whether 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) applies to foreclosures of properties for which the Federal Housing Finance Authority holds a securitized mortgage solely as trustee for the security holders; and (2) whether a foreclosure sale in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 4617(j)(3) is void in its entirety, such that an unknowing purchaser can seek to unwind the deal, or whether the statute only prevents extinguishment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s liens.
