Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, when anoffer[] to sell under the Patent Act occurs, the scope of the reviewStrickland v. Washingtonrequires to determine whether an error rendered counsels representation constitutionally deficient, the validity of a foreclosure sale that violated12 U.S.C. 4617(j)(3), and the scope of a federal courts jurisdiction when determining whether resolution of a state-law claim would involve a collective bargaining agreement and thus trigger pre-emption.
Thepetitions of the week are:
Issue:Whether, under the first prong ofStrickland v. Washington, a court must evaluate counsels overall performance in determining whether a single error is sufficiently egregious to render counsels 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 Macs liens.
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline
Cases: Connecticut v. Skakel, Alaska Airlines Inc. v. Schurke, Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.