| Name |
Counsel
of Record |
Certiorari To |
DN |
Summary of QP |
Status |
| Berger
v. Arizona |
Laurie Herman Scottsdate, AZ |
S. Ct. of
Ariz. |
06-349 |
Whether a 200-year prison sentence for
possessing twenty images of child pornography violates the Eighth
Amendment. (Also available: BIO,
Reply
- thanks to counsel on both sides for sending). |
Denied |
| Ohio
v. Farris |
Jason Desiderio Rupp, Baase |
S. Ct. of
Ohio |
06-464 |
Whether the Fifth Amendment requires the
suppression of post-Miranda
warning statements because they cover the same information as pre-Miranda warning statements even
when there is no police strategy to intentionally avoid Miranda. (Also available: BIO,
Reply
- thanks to Jason Desiderio for sending). [Note: Howe &
Russell represent the respondent.] |
Denied |
| Dow
Chemical v. US |
John Magee McKee Nelson |
CA6 |
06-478 | Whether the
Sixth Circuit erred by creating, in direct conflict with decisions of
this Court and other circuits, an exclusionary rule for economic
substance cases that bars consideration of future taxpayer investment
merely because the taxpayer has engaged in a long-term transaction in
which a substantial portion of its out-of-pocket expenditure is
deferred. (Also available: BIO,
Reply,
Amer.
Chem. Council Amicus -
thanks to the folks at McKee Nelson). |
Denied |
| Horn
v. Stevens |
Christopher Carusone Penn. AG's office |
CA3 |
06-511 |
Whether, in violation of AEDPA, the Court of Appeals set aside a reasonable state-court determination of fact that a prospective capital sentencing juror was biased and properly excused for cause under Wainwright v. Witt, in favor of its own interpretation of the record. (Also available: BIO - thanks to both sides). | Likely Held |
| Schor v. Abbott Labs | Ben Barnow Barnow and Assoc. |
CA7 |
06-577 |
Whether a claim for relief exists under
Sec. 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act where a party with monopoly power
in one market has improperly exploited its dominant position to
establish or enhance a monopoly in a secondary market. (Also available:
BIO,
Reply
- thanks to counsel on both sides). |
Denied |
| Philip Morris
v. Minn./ CITMA v. Philip Morris |
Murray Garnick Arnold & Porter (for Philip Morris) |
S. Ct. of
Minn. |
06-633/ 06-805 |
In light of the settlement a civil lawsuit
against the petitioner tobacco manufacturers for reimbursement of
health care costs attributed to tobacco: whether legislation that
impairs a state's proprietary contract violates the Contracts Clause
only when the contract contains an unmistakable promise by the state
not to alter the terms of the contract through subsequent legislation.
(Also available: 06-633 BIO
- thanks to the folks at Arnold & Porter) |
Denied |
| McCarran Int'l Airport v. Sisolak | Carter Philips Sidely Austin |
S. Ct. of
Nevada |
06-658 |
Whether federal law precludes recognition
under state law of private ownership of federally defined "navigable
airspace" that is less than 500 feet above a landowner's property and
that the landowner never used before it became part of the navigable
airspace. |
Denied |
| Coltec v. US | Carter Philips Sidley Austin |
CA Fed |
06-659 |
In determining that a transaction may be
disregarded for tax purposes, whether a federal court of appeals should
review the trial court's findings that the transaction had economic
substance de novo or for
clear error. |
Denied |
| Kentucky v. Davis | Douglas Dowell Finance and Admin. Cabinet of KY |
S. Ct. of
Kent. |
06-666 |
Whether a state violates the dormant
Commerce Clause by providing an exemption from its income tax for
interest income derived from bonds issued by the state and its
political subdivisions, while treating interest income realized from
bonds issued by other states and their political subdivisions as
taxable to the same extent, and in the same manner, as interest earned
on bonds issued by commercial entities, whether domestic or foreign. (BIO,
via TaxProf Blog). |
Unk. |
| Bender v. Dist. of Columbia | Dale Cooter Cooter, Mangold |
D.C. Ct. of
App. |
06-719 |
Whether the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals erred in holding that the prohibition in the
Congressionally-enacted Home Rule Act barring "any tax" on nonresidents
does not apply to the D.C. Council's application of the unincorporated
business tax to nonresidents. |
Denied |
| Lively v. Wild Oats | Amy Howe Howe & Russell |
CA9 |
06-748 |
Whether the forum defendant exception to
removal jurisdiction is inapplicable whenever a plaintiff seeking
remand fails to raise it within thirty days of removal. [Note: Howe
& Russell represents the petitioner] |
Denied |
| Warren v. Volusia County | Michael Youkon Port Orange, FL |
CA11 |
06-755 |
Whether Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act establishes a duty upon employers to engage in an
interactive process with a disabled employee to identify and seek
reasonable accommodations and, if so, if the process triggered upon
notice of the disability and a desire for accommodations. |
Denied |
| Illinois Central RR Co. v. McDaniel | Paul Cunningham Harkins Cunningham |
S. Ct. of
Miss. |
06-763 |
Whether, when an employee covered by the
Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA") settles a claim for
occupational injury with an employer, section 5 of FELA imposes special
restrictions on the freedom of the parties to include in the settlement
a release of other potential occupational injury claims, or do "the
releases of [FELA] employees stand on the same basis of the releases of
others?" (UPDATE: Also available: BIO,
Reply
- thanks to Paul Cunningham and others at Harkins Cunningham.) |
Denied |
| New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez-Torres | Andrew Rossman Akin Gump Ted Olson Gibson Dunn |
CA2 |
06-766 |
Whether the Second Circuit run afoul of American Party of Texas v. White by
mandating a primary in lieu of a party convention for the nomination of
candidates for New York State trial judge. [Note: Akin Gump represents
the petitioners]. |
Granted |
| Locklear v. Bergman & Beving AB | John Kotzker Kotzker Shamy |
CA4 |
06-786 |
Whether under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c), the
plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the identity of the proper defendant
was intended to constitute a "mistake" that would allow an amended
complaint substituting the name of the proper defendant after the
expiration of the statute of limitations to relate back to the date of
the original complaint and avoid being time barred by the statute of
limitations. (Also available: BIO,
Reply
- thanks to Justin Cincola, a law student who worked on the case for
petitioner, for sending) |
Denied |
| Waggoner v. Suisse Sec. Bank and Trust | Thomas Rohback LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene, & McRae |
CA2 |
06-824 (warning: big
file) |
Whether the amount in controversy
requirement of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1332 should be determined solely from the
plaintiffs' perspective or from the perspective of both parties to the
controversy. |
Denied |