Paul Chapman

United States Supreme Court (10 summaries)

Kaley v. United States

A criminal defendant who is indicted does not have the constitutional right to challenge a grand jury's finding of probable cause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper

Under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), immunity is not granted when airlines and their employees provide materially false disclosures about suspicious behavior.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Burt v. Titlow

"The Sixth Circuit failed to apply the "double differential" standard of review recognized by the Court's case law when it refused to credit the state court's reasonable factual finding and assumed that counsel was ineffective where the record was silent."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Sekhar v. United States

Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” under the Hobbs Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Property Law

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Under the the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), neither §1912(f) nor §1912(d) bars the termination of parental rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Maracich v. Spears

"An attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act 18 U. S. C. § 2721 (b)(4) litigation exception."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

A fine for a violation of an agricultural marketing order must not be paid prior to filing a “takings” claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Moncrieffe v. Holder

A charge of aggravated, felonious distribution of marijuana cannot be leveled against a non-citizen when there is a failure to establish remuneration or if the amount of marijuana is small.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Reichle v. Howards

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages liability “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

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

Hall v. United States

Under 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A), federal income tax liability resulting from individual debtors' sale of their farm during the course of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy is not "incurred by the estate" and thus not dischargeable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (11 summaries)

Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.

Whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, to satisfy the three year time limitation in § 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Pom Wonderful LLC V. Coca-Cola Company

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label regulated under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

Whether the nonstatutory defense of laches is available without restriction to bar all remedies for civil copyright claims filed within the three-year statute of limitations prescribed by Congress, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall

Whether an employer and union may violate Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186, by entering into an agreement under which the employer exercises 1) its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union activity, 2) its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer’s property and employees, and 3) its freedom of contract by obtaining the union’s promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer’s business.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Northwest Inc. v. Ginsberg

Whether a contract claims based on the doctrine of good faith and fair dealing is preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life Insurance Co.

Whether judicial review of the statute of limitations in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) disability benefit claim may begin to run before the claimant can bring a legal action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(1) Whether a forum-selection clause designating an alternative federal forum is enforceable under Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., limited to review under a discretionary balancing-of-conveniences analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and (2) Whether district courts should allocate the burden of proof between parties seeking to enforce or avoid forum-selection clauses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Burt v. Titlow

(1) Whether a defendant’s subjective testimony is sufficient to prove that but-for ineffective counsel, she would have pled guilty; (2) Whether the appropriate remedy under Lafler v. Cooper is to resentence a defendant who proves that ineffective assistance led to her refusal to plead guilty.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

(1) Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act contains an unstated “market participant” exception that allows a municipal governmental entity to act in conflict with the express preemption clause when the municipal entity does not participate in the market and does not have any interest in the efficient procurement of services; (2) “Whether permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers' federal registration.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Maryland v. King

Whether the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from persons arrested for violent crimes who have been charged but not convicted.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Missouri v. McNeely

Whether evidence obtained by a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver is admissible under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure