January arguments, day by day
on Oct 30, 2006 at 10:47 am
The Supreme Court on Monday released the calendar of cases to be argued in the January sitting, beginning Monday, Jan. 8 (download here). Here are the cases, day by day, with a summary of the issues at stake:
Mon., Jan. 8
Moylan v. Camacho (06-116) — tax valuation method in Guam under its organic act; also, Court-added question on time of filing for Supreme Court review. (QP)
United Haulers Association v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority (05-1345) — local government power to control disposal of solid wastes. (QP)
Tue., Jan. 9
Sinochem International v. Malaysia International Shipping (06-102) — court power to dismiss case because the forum is inconvenient. (QP)
Schriro v. Landrigan (05-1575) — duty of defense lawyer in capital sentencing to offer mitigating evidence even if the client opposes any such maneuver. (QP)
Wed., Jan. 10
Zuni Public School District v. Department of Education (05-1508) — formula for federal aid to public school districts that include a federal facility or an Indian reservation. (QP)
Davenport v. Washington Education Association (05-1589) and Washington v. Washington Education Association (05-1657) — state power to restrict labor unions’ political use of non-members’ dues (cases consolidated for 1 hour of argument). (QP in 1589, QP in 1657)
Mon., Jan. 15 — legal holiday, no arguments
Tue., Jan. 16
Safeco v. Burr 06-84) and GEICO v. Edo (06-100) — definition of willfulness under federal truth-in-credit law (cases consolidated for 1 hour of argument). (QP in 84, QP in 100)
Travelers Casualty v. Pacific Gas (05-1429) — right to recover attorneys’ fees in bankruptcy. (QP)
Wed., Jan. 17
Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman (05-11284) and Brewer v. Quarterman (05-11287) — capital jury duty to fully consider all mitigating evidence; Fifth Circuit duty to follow Supreme Court precedent (cases consolidated for 1 hour of argument). (QP in 11284, QP in 11287)
Smith v. Texas (05-11304) — capital jury duty to fully consider all mitigating evidence; Texas state courts’ duty to follow Supreme Court precedent. (QP)
