| Name |
Counsel
of Record |
Certiorari To |
DN |
Summary of QP |
Status |
| Oklahoma
v. Coddington |
Seth Branham OK AG's office |
OK Ct. of
Crim. App. |
06-889 |
Whether the lower court's
interpretation of Lockett v. Ohio
violates this Court's holding in Johnson
v. Texas that a jury need only "be able to consider in some
manner all of a defendant's relevant mitigating evidence," and need not
"be able to give effect to mitigating evidence in every conceivable
manner in which the evidence might be relevant." |
|
| Yusuf
v. US |
Leon Friedman New York, NY |
CA3 |
06-892 |
Whether the Third Circuit erred
in approving a search where the search warrant affidavit was not
attached to the warrant and the warrant permitted a search for evidence
of all "illegal activities" and all "illegal business activities,"
without limitations or particularity. (Petition coming soon) |
|
| Fishing
Vessel Choloe Z v. Matos |
David Frederick KHHTEF |
CA9 |
06-899 |
Whether the three-year statute
of limitations for maritime tort actions bars a suit filed more than
three years after the claim arose, when the plaintiff filed a prior,
timely suit asserting the same claim but failed to pursue the claim in
that prior suit. (Also available: BIO,
Reply,
Int'l
Group Amicus) |
|
| County
Bank of Rehoboth Beach v. Muhammad |
Claudia Callaway Manatt, Phelps & Phillips |
S. Ct. of NJ |
06-907 |
Whether a class arbitration waiver in an otherwise enforceable arbitration agreement is unenforceable and must be stricken. (Also available: BIO, Reply) | |
| MetLife
v. Glenn |
Lee Paterson Winston & Strawn |
CA6 |
06-923 |
Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the fact that a claim administrator of an ERISA plan also funds the plan benefits constitutes a "conflict of interest" which must be weighed in a judicial review of the administrator's benefit determination under Firestone Tire & Rubber v. Bruch. (Petition coming soon) | |
| Daewoo
v. General Motors |
Larry Robbins Robbins Russell |
CA11 |
06-926 |
Whether a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit, under the doctrine of international comity and based on the preclusive effect of a foreign judgment, is reviewable de novo or only for abuse of discretion. (Also available: BIO of Suzuki, Bio of GM, Reply) | |
| Quanta
Computer v. LG |
Maureen Mahoney Latham & Watkins |
CA Fed |
06-937 |
Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners. (Also available: BIO, Reply) | |
| Chamber of
Commerce v. Lockyer |
Willis Goldsmith Jones Day |
CA9 |
06-939 |
Whether California's regulation of noncoercive employer speech about union organizing, California Assembly Bill 1889, Cal. Gov't Code secs. 16645.2, 16645.7, is preempted by federal labor law. (Also available: BIO, Reply) |
|
| Arthur v. Allen | Suhana Han Sullivan & Cromwell |
CA11 |
06-954 |
Whether the courts below erred in denying a petitioner sentenced to death an opportunity to develop a gateway claim of actual innocence through which he seeks collateral review of his first federal habeas petition that has never been reviewed on the merits. (Also available: BIO, Reply) |
|
| Jordan v. Alternative Resources Corp. | Stephen Chertkof Heller, Huron |
CA4 |
06-1086 |
Whether, where an employee promptly
complains about an incident of harassment, the employer can lawfully
retaliate for that complaint until the point that there were so many
other incidents of harassment that the employee could reasonably
conclude that an unlawful hostile work environment has been
created. (Also available: BIO,
NELA Amicus) |
|
| Media
Six v. Ziglar |
Conrad M. Shumadine Willcox & Savage |
S. Ct. of VA |
06-1127 |
Whether a
letter to the editor of a newspaper must be thoroughly investigated to
determine whether the statements are true else the newspaper will be
found liable. (Petition coming soon) |
|
| Doe
v. Kamehameha Schools |
Eric Grant Sacramento, CA |
CA9 |
06-1202 |
Whether respondent private schools' racially exclusionary admissions policy is subject to the same strict scrutiny applied under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or instead is subject to the marginally less demanding scrutiny applied under Title VII of that Act. (Also available: BIO, Reply) |