Notable petitions
on Aug 24, 2010 at 11:12 am
The “Notable petitions†feature lists petitions that are likely to appear on our “Petitions to watch†list when they are scheduled for consideration by the Justices.  “Notable petitions†are those that Tom has identified as raising one or more questions that has a reasonable chance of being granted in an appropriate case.  We generally do not attempt to evaluate whether the case presents an appropriate vehicle to decide the question, which is a critical consideration in determining whether certiorari will be granted.
The newest notable petitions, along with the opinions below and any other briefs filed at the Court so far, follow the jump.
Title: Havens v. Mobex Network Services
Docket: 09-1518
Issue: (1) Whether state-law claims for damages associated with an FCC-issued license constitute state “regulation†of rates and market entry, and, if so, whether preemption is limited to only those claims that directly affect the regulation of rates and market entry; and (2) whether the Federal Communications Act’s savings clause for actions arising under antitrust law applies to claims under both state and federal antitrust law.
- Opinion below (Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate Dist.)
- Petition for certiorari
Title: United States v. Hagen
Docket: 09-1520
Issue: Whether a conviction for misdemeanor assault by intentionally and knowingly causing bodily injury to a family member qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.â€
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition (forthcoming)
- Petitioner’s reply
Title: Sternberg v. Johnston, Johnston v. Sternberg
Docket: 09-1374, 09-1525
Issue: Whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) – specifying that an individual “injured†by a willful violation of the Bankruptcy Code automatic stay “shall recover actual damages†— encompasses compensation for emotional distress (09-1374); whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) authorizes recovery of the attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting damages actions brought under the same statute (09-1525; conditional cross-petition).
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Amended opinion
- Second amended Opinion
In 09-1374:
NOTE: 09-1374 was also listed in an earlier edition of “Notable petitions.â€
In 09-1525:
Title: Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods
Docket: 09-1529
Issue: (1) Whether the term “changing clothes,†used in § 230(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, applies to the items worn by poultry plant workers; (2) whether the adage that exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act are to be narrowly construed requires a narrow construction of that section; and (3) whether the so-called “continuous day†rule requires that paid time include (a) “sanitizing†gloves and aprons at the beginning and end of the shift and (b) donning and doffing and sanitizing gloves and aprons at the beginning and end of the meal break.
- Opinion below (4th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
Title: DePierre v. United States
Docket: 09-1533
Issue: Whether the term “cocaine base†encompasses every form of cocaine that is classified chemically as a base, or whether the term “cocaine base†is limited to “crack†cocaine.
- Opinion below (1st Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
Title: Turner v. Price
Docket: 10-10
Issue: Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of South Carolina)
- Petition for certiorari
- Amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.
- Amicus brief for the Center for Family Policy and Practice, et al.
- Amicus brief of the Constitution Project
The following petition was filed by Akin Gump and is listed without regard to its likelihood of being granted:
Title: Worldwide Network Services v. DynCorp International
Docket: 10-11
Issue: Whether evidence of overt intentional discrimination on the basis of race can support an inference that the discriminating party acted with malice or with reckless indifference to the victim’s federally protected rights.
