| Name |
Counsel
of Record |
Certiorari To |
DN |
Summary of QP |
Status |
| Avis Budget Group v. Cal. State Teachers' Retirement System | Samuel Kadet Skadden Arps |
CA9 |
06-560 |
Whether a secondary actor may be primarily
liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
engaging in a "scheme to defraud" with the issuer, even where that
secondary actor did not itself participate in making the challenged
misstatements or omissions or engage in any act of "manipulation."
(Also available: BIO,
Reply)
[Note: This case presents the same issue as Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta,
06-43; see post here.
Stoneridge was granted
on 3/26.] |
Held |
| Detroit Int'l Bridge Co. v. US | Seth Waxman Wilmer Hale |
CA6 |
06-639 |
Whether requiring courts to apply the
interest rate set in the Declaration of Taking Act to determine the
compensation due when the government delays payment of just
compensation for private property taken under the Act violates the Just
Compensation Clause and the separation of powers when applying the
statutory interest rate would materially undercompensate the
landowner. (Also available: BIO,
Reply) |
Denied |
| Kelley v. Bracewell | Mark Stancil Robbins Russell |
CA11 |
06-739 |
Whether a crop bailout payment received by a debtor pursuant to legislation enacted by Congress after the debtor's filing for bankruptcy, but predicated entirely upon pre-petition events, is property of the bankruptcy estate. (Also available: BIO, Reply) |
Denied |
| U.S. Forest Service v. Earth Land Institute | Paul Clement Solicitor General |
CA9 |
06-797 |
Whether a preliminary injunction should have been ordered when the court relied on declarations filed by parties in the district court, or should it have confined its review to the administrative record in determining whether respondents had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. (Also available: Resp. Sierra Pacific Industries in Support) |
Denied |
| Joblove
v. Barr Labs |
Patrick Cafferty Miller, Faucher & Cafferty |
CA2 |
06-830 |
Whether an
agreement by a brand pharmaceutical manufacturer (and patent holder) to
share a portion of its future profits with a generic market entrant
(and alleged patent infringer), in exchange for the generic's agreement
not to market its product, is a violation of the antitrust laws. (Also
available: BIO,
Reply) [Note:
this case is featured in this week's Legal Times] |
CVSG |
| Old
Stone Corp. v. US |
Richard Taranto Farr & Taranto |
CA Fed |
06-837 |
Whether the Federal Circuit incorrectly held that the victim of a total contract breach, by making post-breach mitigation efforts, made an "election of remedies" that forfeited its remedy of restitution, where it did not receive, and could not expect to receive, any post-breach contract performance from the breaching party. (Also available: BIO, Reply, US Chamber Amicus) | Denied |
| Louisiana
Health Service and Indemnity Co. v. Rapides Healthcare System |
Howard Shapiro Proskauer Rose |
CA5 |
06-839 |
Whether ERISA preempts a state law that authorizes an action to collect benefits previously paid to a plan participant and establishes a remedy outside ERISA's exclusive civil enforcement scheme, because the state law conflicts with the cause of action for benefits set forth in ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B). (Also available: BIO, Reply, Blue Cross Amicus) | Denied |
| Goetz
v. John B. |
Charles Cooper Cooper & Kirk |
CA6 |
06-901 |
Whether the prohibition against bias on the
part of judicial and quasi-judicial officers applies to a
court-appointed special master and experts whose findings of
noncompliance with a consent decree are adopted and whose proposed
remedial measures are provisionally ordered by the district
court. (Also available: BIO,
Reply) |
Denied |
| Houk
v. Joseph |
Stephen Carney Ohio AG's office |
CA6 |
06-961 | Whether, in granting habeas corpus relief, the Sixth Circuit misapplied settled rules that limit its role and authority and erroneously set aside reasonable state-court determinations of fact. (Also available: BIO, Reply) | Denied |
| Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee Plan v. Miller | David Remes Covington & Burling |
CA9 |
06-962 |
Whether ERISA permits a pension plan, when calculating an employee's accrued pension benefit at retirement, to apply an offset for the benefits the employee receives before reitrement from other sources by valuing those benefits in the same way as benefits due at retirement. (Also available: BIO, Reply, American Benefits Council Amicus) |
Denied |