United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted Opinions

2017

January 2 summaries

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco, et al.

Whether specific jurisdiction requires a causation connection between a defendant's connections with a forum state and the Plaintiff's suit?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

District of Columbia, et al. v. Wesby, et al.

Whether Petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because the applicable law regarding trespass was not clearly established and whether probable cause existed when Petitioners arrested Respondents for trespass after being informed by the homeowner that no one had permission to be on the property and if Petitioners could use that information to discredit the inconsistent explanations provided by Respondents?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

February 4 summaries

Class v. United States

Whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which he or she was convicted?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Artis v. District of Columbia

Whether the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the statute of limitation period while a state-law claim is pending in federal court and for an additional 30 days after it is dismissed, or whether the statute of limitation period continues running while the state-law claim is pending in federal court but the plaintiff has a 30-day grace period to refile that state-law claim after it is dismissed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago

Whether the thirty-day limit for extending the deadline to file notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a statutory mandate or a claim-processing rule open to equitable exceptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Wilson v. Sellers

“Whether the court's decision in Harrington v. Richter silently abrogates the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker – that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision – as a slim majority of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply?”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

March 2 summaries

Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System

Whether Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K sets forth an affirmative duty to disclose that is actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

U.S. National Bank Association v. Village at Lakeridge

Whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-stuatory insider status in a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is the de novo standard of review, as followed by the 3rd, 7th, and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review, as followed by the 9th Circuit?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

April 2 summaries

Ayestas v. Davis

Whether a court may deny a movant's request for "reasonably necessary" resources under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) to investigate and advance an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was forfeited by the movant's state habeas counsel, where the movant's "existing evidence does not meet the ultimate burden of proof at the time the § 3599(f) motion is made."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC

Whether the Alien Tort Statute authorizes claims against corporate defendants?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

May 3 summaries

Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.

“Whether the safe harbor of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits avoidance of a transfer made by or to a financial institution, without regard to whether the institution has a beneficial interest in the property transferred.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Patchak v. Zinke

“Whether a statute directing the federal courts to ‘promptly dismiss’ a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court's determination that the ‘suit may proceed’) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee

“Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

June 2 summaries

Carpenter v. U.S.

Whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures protects from the government's warrantless collection of cell phone data that includes the cell user’s historic location.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC

Whether inter partes review, an adversarial proceeding used by the Patent and Trademark Office to determine the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitutional right to an Article III forum and a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

July 0 summaries

August 0 summaries

September 9 summaries

Byrd v. U.S.

Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Collins v. Virginia

Whether the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a police officer's warrantless entry onto private property to search a vehicle parked in close proximity to a dwelling.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dalmazzi v. U.S.

Whether the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the prohibition of active-duty military service officers from dual-officeholding pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), disqualifies a judge who sits on a military Court of Criminal Appeals, if they are also commissioned or appointed to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro

Whether the overtime-pay exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(a), applies to car dealership service advisors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Hall, Elsa v. Hall, Samuel, et al.

Whether, in single district consolidated cases, the entry of a final judgement in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Janus v. American Federation

Whether mandatory public-sector agency fees are compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

McCoy v. Louisiana

Whether defense counsel's decision to concede guilt in a capital case, over the defendant’s express objection, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Rosales-Mireles v. U.S.

Whether the Court's discretionary inquiry under harmless error review, which requires the error to "seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” may be expressed and applied as an error that "would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Vogt v. City of Hays

Whether a criminal defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is violated if the government uses compelled statements against the criminal defendant during a probable cause hearing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

October 6 summaries

Florida v. Georgia

Whether the Special Master erred by requiring Florida to establish by a “guarantee” standard that imposition of a consumption cap on Georgia’s water use from the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin) would not be offset by the operations of dams and reservoirs within the ACF Basin by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Texas v. New Mexico

Whether New Mexico is prohibited from recapturing water it has delivered to Elephant Butte Reservoir pursuant to the 1938 Rio Grande Compact, after that water is released from the Reservoir.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Water Rights

Currier v. Virginia

Whether an acquittal under the Double Jeopardy Clause is available to a defendant who consents to severance of charges into successive trials.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Dahda v. United States

Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Ohio v. American Express Co.

Whether a narrow definition of the relevant market may permit a finding of anti-competitive effects under the Sherman Act rule of reason analysis, thereby requiring the defendant to demonstrate the restraint on trade had pro-competition benefits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

United States v. Microsoft Corporation

Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2703 to disclose material that the provider stored abroad.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

November 3 summaries

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida

Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky

Whether a Minnesota Statute that bans voters from wearing any political badge, political button, or other political insignia at the polling place is facially overbroad under the First Amendment?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

Whether California’s “Reproductive FACT Act” (FACT) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment by compelling crisis pregnancy centers to provide information on state-funded abortions, or in the case of unlicensed facilities, to provide a disclaimer that the facility does not provide medical services.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment